Limp Experiment

[kurto]

Last night I did a very short-term experiment. At PS NL .05/.10 table, I decided for 30 minutes I would dramatically loosen up my starting hand requirements. The table I was at had practically no raising. I would limp in with any 2 suited, any connectors, any 1 gap connectors, any ace, any 2 cards 10 and above and, obviously, any pocket pair; regardless of position. And if I was on the button, I would limp with any 2 cards. (I would still raise with premium hands) If I limped up front and there was a substantial reraise, I would fold my junk, but if it was only 2-3 BB and there was a lot of limpers, I would call. My plan with weak hands like 7-J suited was that I would take a stab at top pair if I hit but use baby bets. If I hit less then top pair, I would only bet if I hit 2 pair and call other's small bets if they bet weak.

I only did it for the last 30 minutes I played on 2 tables, so its not substantial. But (starting with 10$ per table), I did make $6 in the 30 minutes. Granted, most of that was off three hands; 2 where I stayed for flush draws (Q high and 10 high) when 2 people were betting the flop but bet so low, they were giving me odds to draw; and the other was when I flopped an inside straight draw and was checked around until I made it.

I'm wondering if anyone else has dabbled this way and if they had much success?

(On another note, another 2+2er showed up at the table I was at... I was almost embarrassed when I took down a pot and had to show that I'd played Q-8 suited from early position.)

[edpsu92]

I think I am the other 2+2'er you referenced and you need not be embarrassed to take down a pot at the .05/.10 with Q8. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] As a matter of fact, I dramatically alter my starting hand requirements based on the limits I am playing at and what I believe directly correlates to the skill levels(or lack thereof) of the players at these limits. At the .5/.10 tables, I raise with all the standard "textbook" hands you are supoose to play and I also limp with all suited connectors, one gappers, sometimes 2 gappers, sometimes just connectors unsuited and any two painted cards. I fold immediately if raised significantly but I feel the money is made at these limits by seeing as many flops as possible and hitting monsters with concealed hands. I have come to the conclusion(and it may be wrong but I am winning) that in order to compete at these smaller no limit limits, you have to dramatically alter your starting hand requirements. Otherwise, when you finally do hit a flop with the textbook good hands, you get no action and you rake a pot with $.40 cents in it. This may be against the conventional wisdom of many on this forum but I find it to be crucial to my success. Obviously, this does not work if you move up in limits although I do maintain the same flexibility at higher limits and will adjust if necessary. I just dont wait to adjust at the lower limits.

So, Kurto, if we meet again, you will see me win with some very strange starting hands as well. To tell you the truth, if you read SSHE, I am not so sure that Sklansky isnt advocating for this very type of play in some sections of the book or at least that is how i interpreted some sections. At any rate, hope to play with you again.

[kurto]

Hey. It was you at the table. I like your idea of loosening up. I've been playing very tight for those tables (I usually see a flop 20% and that includes the blinds). Though I've done very well in the long run playing that way, I've been itching to experiment.

I've considered trying to play the bully more. (which is tough since its hard to bluff people who will call an all-in bet with middle pair.) I've seen so many maniacs do well in the short run but then lose it when they do it too many times. (those are my favorite people to play against... so why try it, I should ask myself.)

I definitely think that there's room to loosen up at these levels where you can go 4-5 hands without seeing anyone raise (or when they do, they raise it a dime.) Considering you can get people to call your (obvious) straight with top pair, its worth it.

My only fear about the plan is you have to hit. We've all seen sessions where you sit at a table for an hour and never connect with any flop. If you're playing a lot of hands, that'll add up.

Certainly players like Gus Hanson do very well playing junk hands effectively. I am certainly no Gus Hanson but I how would one become one if they don't try it, right?

Anyhoo... I'll see you at the tables.

[mason55]

I've made a lot of easy money at the same limits on Pacific. It's rediculously easy to limp with any type of hand and fold right away on the flop if you don't hit. In fact I pretty much stopped raising pre-flop with anything except the very best hands, no matter what position I'm in.

The great thing is that you don't have to build a pot preflop to take down when you hit; They will all pay you off when you hit anyways and you can fold when you miss, so there's not much point in raising preflop. The only time I'll raise preflop is with a big pair, to thin the field so that I can play heads up. You set yourself up to lose a few two pair hands that you wo;uldn't have lost otherwise but in the long run at these limits I think it's definitely a winning strategy.

Example: I'm in SB with KJ [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
Flop is 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
Ended up losing to someone who limped with J5o. But I've definitely shown a nice profit using this strategy at these limits.

[kurto]

Its definitely an interesting idea. I think I'll give it a longer test. Tried it out for a full 3 hour session (if I can find a passive enough table) and try it out.

If its not profitable, at least one night I'll see a lot of flops.

[mythrilfox]

Playing these hands regularly in the long run cannot be profitable. You will put yourself in very difficult situations where you have top pair but weak kicker and will end up getting ganked by someone who limped with AJs or TT with an overpair to the board. Unless you flop a flush or straight or two pair or trips (all very unlikely), you cannot be confident in your hand and will end up losing more than you gain.

However, on occassion it can show profit (moreso at higher stakes and in live games) to deviate from the books a bit. Hell, even the books recommend it. But they don't recommend you do it that often.

[kurto]

"Playing these hands regularly in the long run cannot be profitable." I think that depends on the quality of your opponents. At PS .05/.10... when you hit, you can usually guarantee a decent payout. Too many players won't give you credit when you do make a monster that they'll pay you off.

I'm not saying play any 2 cards from upfront, mind you. I'm not limping in with 3-8 unsuited upfront. But I will limp in with A-4 suited upfront when no-one's reraising. If I hit my flop, they will pay.

(as an example... a weak or so ago I had KQsuited on the button. I flopped the nutstraight. My first thought was I'll never get paid for this. To my surprise, an EP player bet into it, which was reraised by a MP player. I thought, "What the hell is going on here?" I called. The turn was nothing that could help anyone. The EP player bets again, again he is reraised, again I call. Another suited card falls (there's now 4 on the board.) They both check to me. I bet a $1 into the $10 pot. The first guy folds, the next guy checkraises me all in for another 5-6 dollars.

Another hand, some guy was betting into my quads with pocket 7s. Even when I and another person played back at him, there where overcards on the board... he gave me his stack.

Granted... if you get nothing and nothing connects, you give away a lot of small bets.

Re: losing a lot with top pair to someone with a better kicker... I would never put too much value in my top pair. With any serious playback, I fold unless I can beat TPTK.

No matter if it works out or not, it can definitely be a fun experiment for 1 night.

[mythrilfox]

That's because KQs on the button is a good hand.

[mason55]

kurto, this is a post a made a couple weeks ago on this subject:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...v=#Post1513679

You should check it out, esp the quote from HPFAP

[Obliky]

On the general subject of looseness / tightness..im sure ive read that you should adjust your play in the following way:

As the table gets looser...you get tighter
As the table gets tighter...you get looser

Doesnt it say that in S/S? i cant remember exactly where ive read it...