Do you limp first in shorthanded? Why?

[kiddo]

Which hands do you only limp (call) with first in, in a shorthanded game (5 or 6 players)?
And why?

My (kind of short) answer:

If the game is loose but not very aggressive I limp with some suited hands in early position. Like Axs, 89s, KTs. Also I maybe limp with middlepairs like 55-99.

If the game is very tight - or if I for some other reason people are folding to my preflop raises - I want to limp with AA, KK, AKs... therefore, if I think the other players are good and notice, I have to limp with some hands to protect these. Normally also hands like Axs, 98s and KTs.

I never limp first in with an offsuit hand.

Im thinking about starting to limp a little more UTG in a 6-handed game, but I first want to hear if someone else is doing it (I really think UTG in 6-handed is very different from UTG in 5-handed)

[stripsqueez]

sigh...

its called under the gun because its a crap posistion - what i read is you want to play mediocre rubbish hands in a crap posistion on the basis that you hope the next couple of guys dont have a real hand - then if that goes ok you hope that the SB doesnt complete with 84s and hit a 567 flop

i reckon you either play and say "i've got a serious hand and you guys need to pay more if you want to play with me" or you throw them away - poker is like lots of games - compromise is code for coward

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[KSU78]

I use game theory to limp first in. For AA and KK, they must come club-diamond to limp 1 out of 12 times. QQ, two red or one red queen and the queen of clubs, is raised 50% of the time. JJ is raised only when the jack of clubs is the first card. I tend to limp with all other pocket pairs but will raise on club-diamonds for 84% of the time limping.

ATs or higher, I will limp with the suit-of-the-day (25%) if the game is too tight. Likewise with AK, sometimes AQ and AJ, when the ace is the suit-of-the-day ace.

From my experiences, the frequency of limping with pocket pairs works well in all short-handed games. Limping with other hands when game theory is not needed can bring lots of trouble. So, when is game theory needed? Game theory in this sense is used to trap opponents. If my opponents do well enough setting their own traps to fall into, my strategy is never invoked.

I am considering adding marginal hands to my arsenal such as A-little suited and small pairs. I will probably use the suit-of-the-day to decide to play them and alternate raising and limping with them. I feel that I need to add this dimension to my game to have a better effect on the traps that I set.

[CORed]

I will limp in with the kind of hands you mentioned if I can get away with it. Since I play mostly 10/20, usually I can't. One exception is that I will often limp 1st in any position with small pocket pairs. Even if I do have to call a raise, this usually gets enough people in the pot that I will get paid well enough to make it profitable if i flop the set.

[Ulysses]

Good post. However, it feels like you're giving up too much by limping w/ JJ and QQ that much unless you're limp re-raising w/ a relatively wide group of hands.

[KSU78]

Yes, re-raising is in order with QQ and JJ. Even in a full game, I tend to use the same strategy. As I recall, it is 3 to 2 that an A or K will appear on the flop. Of course, in the low limit games, they certainly love their aces and kings. Raising with QQ or JJ usually won't cause A8os to fold at that level.

[kiddo]

Why are you sighing?

How do you play in a loose but not very aggressive game UTG 6-handed? You want to see the flop cheap because the players are capable of loosing a lot postflop.

You raise 77 UTG (6handed), get 3 callers.

You call 77 UTG (6handed) and get 4 callers.

I would say that raising is EV- and calling is EV+, or at least, raising is worse then calling in this scenario against players calling on flop with almost anything.

[kiddo]

Tyvm, good post, gave me something to think about.

Do you follow game theory all the time, or do you sometimes say to yourself: "well, because of my current tableimage (or some other reason) I dont want to limp this time"?

Or is the point with game theory excatly: "I dont want them to be able to guess what I think that they think..."?

[stripsqueez]

why am i sighing ? - good question - i suppose its because i view the debate as a bit flawed

i find detailed analysis of starting hand strategy in short handed hold'em... indecent... for want of a better word

poker isnt a precise game - the shorter a game of hold'em gets the less its about precision and technique and the more it is about playing cards for money against other people - i dont dismiss the theory and technique but i view them as things that help me understand how to play the game rather than a description of how the game should be played

game theory is a good example - i undertsand the concept and i admire it as powerful knowledge in a poker players understanding of the game - but - when i get dealt KK UTG in a short handed hold'em game i would prefer to raise when its right to raise and limp reraise when its right to limp reraise not choose on the basis of whether one of my cards is a club

the mechanics of poker are in truth simple when compared with lots of other games - i'm a contract bridge expert - that is a seriously complex game to play and understand at a technical level - yet at an expert level what seperates the consistent winners from the rest is not a theoretical understanding of the game - its a practical understanding of the game

paradoxically i listen intently to any poker player who says "its a complex game" - i reckon thats code for an appreciation that there are endless possibilities and the reason for there being endless possibilities is that its a game and games are played by people not automatons

the big picture view of never open limping in short handed appeals to me because of its simplicity - it mirrors simple truths about the game - i hate to say it but of-course i do sometimes limp - you might say that on the very rare occasions that i do limp i do it because i understand game theory - i understand that predictability is bad - refining that understanding is of little or no use in nearly all the games i play in - when i become good enough to say that 99% of the decisions i make require no conscious thought or i only play with expert players then i would hope that my understanding that predictability is bad becomes more refined - if that happens it will only happen because i have a practical understanding of it - not because i have read and understood game theory

i hope that serves as some explanation for my sigh

sigh...i might of simply observed that it works for me

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[KSU78]

I am setting traps designed for the tough, solid players. I want to make it as tough as possible for them to put me on a hand. And, most of all, I want them to play incorrectly according to Sklansky's fundamental theorm of poker. I know that I get into trouble when I put my opponent on the wrong hand. I want my opponents to do the same thing.