Thought experiment

DrPublo · #1 07-09-2005, 04:05 AM

Doing some reading in mid-high, and it seems to me in the very big games (10-20 NL and above) there's rarely any open-limping preflop.

What if I adjusted my play in SS NL (I play up to about 2-5 NL) accordingly, and just never limped PF? My opening standards would obviously be position dependent, but would probably be like TT+ in EP, 88+ in MP and 66+ in LP. Would this be a profitable strategy at low stakes?

The Doc

soah · #2 07-09-2005, 05:22 AM

To a certain extent you must follow how everyone else in the game is playing. In a game where your limp is always going to get raised by anyone behind you that wants to play, then you are better off just raising yourself. In a game with lots of limping, there's no point in building the pot with hands that want a cheap flop.

BZ_Zorro · #3 07-09-2005, 05:36 AM

Interesting.

I think this is worthy of a real experiment.

fimbulwinter · #4 07-09-2005, 05:53 AM

if you exempted the first 4 seats (so you aren't raising 22 UTG etc.) in a tenmax game, you have a solid strategy. in fact, you have something that looks pretty much like my PF strategy.

fim

raisethatmofo · #5 07-09-2005, 05:58 AM

Don't raise 66 - 88 ever in my opinion. It's enough just to raise 99 and up. That's enough mixing up to be sufficient.

jjacky · #6 07-09-2005, 06:00 AM

it would definitely be a profitable strategy (i think almost any good high-stakes strategy is profitable in low limit; an exeption would be some blind battles due to the higher rake). but i don't think it is the optimal strategy in small stakes. why not exploiting the passivity of the opposition by limping with small pairs, suited connectors, suited aces and other weak drawing hands?

MTBlue · #7 07-09-2005, 07:03 AM

I can answer your question I did it for almost 15K hands at 25NL, 50NL and 100NL and was very profitable. It's not a bad strategy. The problem really comes in with getting 5 callers on every raise so essentially you double the stakes for the game. As I got better I started to limp more b/c I felt like I could outplay the average player postflop and they didn't seem to care that they were contesting with their whole stacks an essentially nothing pot. The bigger limits the raise first in is almost mandatory b/c people won't stack off in a nothing pot and the raiser often times takes down the pots uncontested and has steal equity on the flop. Neither of these ideas is particularly applicable to small stakes, but I found that you could still be profitable always raising first in .

wtfsvi · #8 07-09-2005, 08:00 AM

Never limp pf (I take it you mean never open limp?), and not open with 99 UTG? Does that mean you'll fold it? (If so, you must be drunk obviously.)

Never open-limp in the CO or button, and open raise quite much more than half the hands you're opening in MP. That's about how I play 6max. Open raising 22-66 UTG isn't going to happen though. Not open folding them either.

And I'm not about to raise A4s on the button after 3 limpers. And not about to fold it.

I don't understand what you're saying actually, but it doesn't sound (maximally) profitable.

DrPublo · #9 07-09-2005, 12:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Never limp pf (I take it you mean never open limp?), and not open with 99 UTG? Does that mean you'll fold it? (If so, you must be drunk obviously.)

Never open-limp in the CO or button, and open raise quite much more than half the hands you're opening in MP. That's about how I play 6max. Open raising 22-66 UTG isn't going to happen though. Not open folding them either.

And I'm not about to raise A4s on the button after 3 limpers. And not about to fold it.

I don't understand what you're saying actually, but it doesn't sound (maximally) profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know. I haven't worked out the details of this strategy yet, but it seems like I could probably get away with NEVER being the first limper, in either 6max or 10max. I think this means folding 88 and below as well as AJo and worse UTG, although I'm not sure. My fear is that I'm losing EV by folding those hands there, but at the same time to any reasonable player my hand should be pretty transparent. I also don't really like raising AJs and AQo UTG, although thats slightly more acceptable in a 6max game.

More thoughts?

The Doc

DrPublo · #10 07-09-2005, 12:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can answer your question I did it for almost 15K hands at 25NL, 50NL and 100NL and was very profitable. It's not a bad strategy. The problem really comes in with getting 5 callers on every raise so essentially you double the stakes for the game. As I got better I started to limp more b/c I felt like I could outplay the average player postflop and they didn't seem to care that they were contesting with their whole stacks an essentially nothing pot. The bigger limits the raise first in is almost mandatory b/c people won't stack off in a nothing pot and the raiser often times takes down the pots uncontested and has steal equity on the flop. Neither of these ideas is particularly applicable to small stakes, but I found that you could still be profitable always raising first in .

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me more about how you played PF. 6max or full game?

The Doc