First-in vigorish and limpers

[deepdowntruth]

In Harrington on Hold'em Vol. 2, particularly the Orange and Red Zone chapters of Part 9, DH emphasizes the importance of "First-in Vigorish" (or FIV); namely the idea that being the first "into" the pot increases the value of even your marginal hands as you have two ways to win (making everyone else fold, or getting called and showing down the best hand).

One confusing (to me) aspect of his constructed examples however is that they assume that either the pot is raised in front of you, in which case you'd typically fold all but your best hands, or that everyone folds around to you, in which case you push, given the added value of FIV.

However, what if you have limpers in front of you? Does the concept of FIV still apply fully? Partially? Not at all?

I can see two ways of thinking about it:

1. If you have limpers (but not raisers), this is a good thing for you because the limpers, by virture of having limped and not raised, have not shown (much) strength, and therefore you can pick up even more chips by pushing. So...yay limpers!

2. Since the limpers voluntarily entered the pot, they showed at least some strength, and since there is more money in the pot, greater pot odds are offered to anyone deciding to call you, which fact of course increases the probability of a call and decreases (or nullifies) the value of FIV. So...boo limpers!

So which is it? One or the other? Both or neither? Maybe either given your reads? What?

Help me out here.

[nebben]

I think limpers have not shown strength. Raisers have shown the strenght. But what do I know, I dropped 5 buyins in NL Omaha today... lol.

[Lloyd]

The concept specifically applies to those situations when you are first to enter the pot. If somebody has limped in front of you, you are not first to enter the pot. Therefore, the concept of "first-in vigorish" does not apply. That doesn't mean you don't push if you've got a decent hand like a middle pair, 2 big cards, or better. And it doesn't mean that you don't try and steal the pot against one limper if the situation is right.

[LLKOOLK1]

I would agree with loyd on this, the limp will take away from your first in vigorash. And in HOH2 this redzone that you are speaking of puts you at under 10M, which with the blinds antes and I would say 1 and defintly two limpers, would give either the big blind or one of the limpers, proper odds on calling your desperate all in bet.
These limpers could be limping with strong hands, looking for a bet such as yours to then reraise, or evn could be limping with weaker holdings that could be foreced to call your all in with the odds that the pot and limpers have created. I would really save this play for when I am truly the first into the pot.

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
I would agree with loyd on this, the limp will take away from your first in vigorash. And in HOH2 this redzone that you are speaking of puts you at under 10M, which with the blinds antes and I would say 1 and defintly two limpers, would give either the big blind or one of the limpers, proper odds on calling your desperate all in bet.
These limpers could be limping with strong hands, looking for a bet such as yours to then reraise, or evn could be limping with weaker holdings that could be foreced to call your all in with the odds that the pot and limpers have created. I would really save this play for when I am truly the first into the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Harrington's Red Zone has an M of 1-5.

[LLKOOLK1]

sorry your right, 6-10 bets would be cosidered orange...but my point is the same, that these limpers would bolster the odss offered to anyone who would have been on the fence of calling your all in move, these pot sweeteners take away from the edge that you gain by being first into the pot.