Is there any reason to open limp UTG?

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
One other thing... their is a reason that having position means acting after someone... it is because it affords an advantage. If you raise weak cards under the gun out of position and think that acting first provides you with a substantial advantage then you are mistaken. Against some players this might be the case, but against good opponents they will notice your tendency to raise with weak cards and constantly be betting into you when you are out of position.


[/ QUOTE ]

Respectfully, K_Squared, I think you've misinterpreted Binions a bit here. I believe Binions is well aware of the general benefits of acting with position; he's simply talking about the special case of having relative position regarding the preflop raiser. You get the idea: the blinds and then you check to the UTG+1 raiser, he presumably bets out, and then you get to see how everybody else reacts to the bet. You've got a positional advantage of sorts yourself now.

[AAAAdam]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally limp with stuff like AT, AJ, KJ and maybe KQ though i might pop it with KQ depending on the mood im in. If the game is really loose(passive would be preferred) suited aces and medium and small pairs id limp with. but in ur average game i would not raise AJ or AT or KJ (assuming u play those hands utg period)because u basically get everyone to fold except hands that are probably beating u or dominating u and they have the position. thats not a position id like to be in personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. You lose too much information and one bet by raising with these hands. Someone who has you dominated will likely raise. If the flop comes low and you don't connect, I'd argue that checking this through is the tack. With high cards on the flop that don't connect, I'd argue check/fold will save you more money over time. On occasion, I'd also try betting in this situation. It might get you a free turn.

My $.02 ... Adam

[ChipLeader]

YOu would limp many hands and for many reasons. Sometimes ill open a suited connector, sometimes ill limp it and call up to one bet. The advantage of limping is giving marginal hands a chance to beat good ones. If you open bet a hand like 78s, you'll have to lay it down if it gets capped on its way back to you and youll be losing two bets.

Same with low - mid PPs, and even hands like TT or JJ, which are often times behind even when they flop as an overpair. There have been countless times i have had QQ and JJ, and even KK, and been behind to a higher PP, but its hard to lay it down if youre betting it up. If a hand is good enough to play, it is good enough to raise, but that doesnt mean its always the right play. AA is obviously good enough to raise but there are times when a limp is the right play to make.

You also limp some hands worth raising to mix up your play, we all agree that is key.

[maxor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think hands like 99 - 77, AJ, KQ, Q10, K10, A10, QJ, KJ etc. are limping hands from EP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't advise playing QT or KT very often from EP.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nor would I, however depending on the game, they are sometimes playable.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Smaller pocket pairs are too vulnerable to domination from EP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd much rather play a small pocket pair from EP in a typical game then some of the other hands you mentioned. They're much easier to know where you stand with and to get away from post flop when necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hrm. Not so much in my experience. I just checked SSHE for kicks and in the preflop play section it mentions avoiding small pairs from EP in a typical game, food for thought.

[Jordan Olsommer]

Here's the text from Chris Ferguson's site that someone else referred to:

[ QUOTE ]
1. Never limp in. PUMP IT or DUMP IT!
One of the most important rules of Hold'Em -- Limit or No Limit -- is to never, ever call as the first player to enter a pot before the flop. Either pump up the pot with a raise, or dump your cards in the muck. If your hand isn't strong enough for a raise, it's too weak for a call. This tactic makes it more difficult for your opponents to read your hand, and it makes it impossible for the big blind to ever see a flop for free when you're in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the vast majority of situations, I agree. In fact the only exception I can think of offhand would be if we did a sort of thought experiment and imagined an incredibly loose-passive game where everybody wants to have fun and limps in to see a flop and calls every raise. You're dealt 22 under the gun. In this hypothetical situation it would be correct to limp, because you basically know ahead of time that you're getting the correct odds to hit your set (in essence, the incredible passiveness of the other 9 players at the table sort of does the work that having position does in a normal game). Then again, this is a pretty far stretch.

I think the only hands that should even be considered for limping regularly are pocket pairs, and the only ones for limping occasionally (to throw people off) would be hands like suited connectors and every now and again a big hand (but only if you're playing against observant players, of course - the sole purpose of that move would be to essentially buy a "get into flop free" card later on in the evening when you want to see a cheap flop from up front with a pocket pair or something.)

In almost all cases though, I think Jesus is correct. (Sorry, it's true, but I just couldn't resist wording the sentence in that way [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Raising:
a) prevents the blinds from seeing a cheap/free flop
b) announces your intention to take control of this hand
c) puts others on the defensive most of the time, so you have chances to win the hand when you dont flop your set or flush/straight draw (whereas your post-flop aggression won't command as much respect if it wasn't preceded by pre-flop aggression, so you won't be able to steal as many pots)
d) it's harder to put you on a hand if you do the same thing every time (this can be offset by raising/limping randomly, though)
e) in my opinion, if you're going to make a play which you think might be marginally erroneous, always make this error on the side of aggression.

On another erroneous note, I must offer this little appeal to authority as it were; Jesus Ferguson is an experimental poker player and thinker almost to a Da Vincean degree. Meaning, he's going to challenge all the mantras of 'proper play' not to be a contrarian, but to see which ones are correct and which ones aren't - in other words, to determine proper play by experiment and calculation, rather than just 'what seems to work' after a few hundred hours in the $200/$400 at the Bellagio or 'what Sklansky/Jones/Krieger/Vorhaus/Miller' says (nothing against them of course, I have of course benefitted greatly from their work - I'm simply referring to the sort of 'gasp! You can't play that under-the-gun! That's only a Group Six hand!!' dogmatic non-thinking that a lot of players couch themselves in). So my appeal to authority is all other things being equal, I'd put more weight on what he has to say about poker than someone who doesn't take an approach to the game that's grounded in experiment and...well, facts and evidence.

Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

[PotatoStew]

[ QUOTE ]
Nor would I, however depending on the game, they are sometimes playable.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I qualified my statement by saying I wouldn't play them "very often." Sure it's correct at times, depending on the game, I just think that it's more often not correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Hrm. Not so much in my experience. I just checked SSHE for kicks and in the preflop play section it mentions avoiding small pairs from EP in a typical game, food for thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I remembered one of the lists in there saying pocket pairs were ok from EP ... the loose game list maybe? I'll have to go back and check. At any rate, it depends (again) on the game. In the low limit games I've played (.50/1, 2/4, and casino 3/6) I feel perfectly comfortable limping a low pocket pair from EP *most* of the time. Now that I'm playing 3/6 online, I see a need to tighten up a little in this respect, but relatively speaking, in a situation where it's not correct to limp EP with a low PP, I'm pretty sure it's even less correct to limp with QT for instance, which was really my point.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
In the low limit games I've played (.50/1, 2/4, and casino 3/6) I feel perfectly comfortable limping a low pocket pair from EP *most* of the time. Now that I'm playing 3/6 online, I see a need to tighten up a little in this respect, but relatively speaking, in a situation where it's not correct to limp EP with a low PP, I'm pretty sure it's even less correct to limp with QT for instance, which was really my point.

[/ QUOTE ]
You need to distinguish QTo from QTs. There is a huge difference between the two in loose games. According to the PokerRoom EV page, at $1-$2 and $2-$4, QTs wins from all positions outside the blinds while QTo loses from almost all positions outside the blinds. Low pairs are mixed.

Many people feel that limping is weak. It sounds weak. It lets the big blind see the flop for free. Do you want to be a weak person or a strong person? However, I belive limping with low suited Broadway cards from early position is better than folding which is better than raising. Sometimes it pays to be weak.

[irish79]

couldn't agree more! Look UTG is not a position you really waht to get in the habit of playing too often. Typically I like to stick to pocket pairs, catch a cheat flop playing for a set. a 55,44,66,etc. is a lot easier to get away from then an AQ or AJ. I've been caught with my hand in the cookie jar too often in EP, with and AQ or AJ once and Ace falls on the flop. Your hardly ever in control of the situation from EP and a smart player realizes that and can keep applying pressure. Thats why pocket pairs that turn into sets (although few and far between) are great from UTG because you can break those players with marginal hands playing them strongly because of there postion.

[k_squared]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One other thing... their is a reason that having position means acting after someone... it is because it affords an advantage. If you raise weak cards under the gun out of position and think that acting first provides you with a substantial advantage then you are mistaken. Against some players this might be the case, but against good opponents they will notice your tendency to raise with weak cards and constantly be betting into you when you are out of position.


[/ QUOTE ]

Respectfully, K_Squared, I think you've misinterpreted Binions a bit here. I believe Binions is well aware of the general benefits of acting with position; he's simply talking about the special case of having relative position regarding the preflop raiser. You get the idea: the blinds and then you check to the UTG+1 raiser, he presumably bets out, and then you get to see how everybody else reacts to the bet. You've got a positional advantage of sorts yourself now.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I understand your point regarding relative position, I actually don't agree with you that it is a major point of emphasis in the situation of determining whether or not to limp in UTG. Your relative positional advantage comes only when you are facing a group of players who will raise very predicatably. Otherwise you leave yourself in bad position by playing UTG, which leaves you at a disadvantage.

Is your default play to check the flop no matter what?
What do you do when someone behind bets out? Can you be sure also that a raise will limit the field to you and the 2 blinds... many of the games I play in this is not the case... If you will check the flop all the time you do hide your strength but also will give people the chance to draw cheaply to their hands by not putting pressure on them, not to mention anytime you do something predicatbly you give an advantage to your opponent. Many authors warn about the tendency to check to the raiser.

To be clear, I do think a relative positional advantage does exist, but that UTG it is the place where it will be of the lease import because more often than from any other position you will have multiple callers even when a raise is put in (as a result of their being more people to act after). I also believe that the advantage you derive from checking and hence taking on the relative position is diluted in part by the fact that you are going to be put into a position where you are not going to be able to call with many hands you would bet with (Gap principle... better cards to call... especially if you are out of position nd even more so if facing a field, unless it is a drawing hand in which case the appropriate pot odds are where they derive their strength).

In general, I feel like the place that relative position takes on the most importance is when you are in middle position make a call and face a single raiser from late position who will bet out every time it is checked to them.

I also agree with Binion that getting raised is not necessarily a bad thing! Often times it helps thin a field in which case you will have a much better sense of where you stand following the flop. You can also take advantage of an aggressive raisers tendency to continue betting following a raise.

Sorry for the rant, just trying to flesh out my thoughts in regard to the comments made regarding limping UTG and jtr's comments about raising. My point remains though, that relative position is not as good as having REAL position except in special circumstances.

-k_squared

[AAAAdam]

[ QUOTE ]
... Sometimes it pays to be weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

This really is the point. There are hands that make you more money against multiple opponents. From UTG, I'd argue that occasionally limping these hands will keep the other players guessing. I've made good money with this approach. I want to try being more aggressive to see which makes me more money.

Adam