HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

I limp a fair amount during all levels of a standard Heads Up SNG. I've played some opponents who never do it. Some are easily exploitable because of postflop weaknesses, but some players are very difficult to play against when they're smart postflop. So the question is: Should a good player limp preflop? If so, under what conditions and with what hands?

Nicho

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

Phenom (!), I'd like your take on this especailly, since I recall that you never limped preflop in our matches.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

I think that following an "always do" rule in HU can only lead to holes in your game. Sure some players raise or fold every hand, and do it very profitably. But that doesn't mean that it's never better to limp. It all depends on the type of opponent you're playing. If the opponent usually either folds or raises to a pf bet, but is terribly loose post and not very perceptive, then it would make sense to limp very often. This is an extreme case of course, but there are still many situations where opponents have holes that can be exploited by limping, even if rarely.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

why anyone would limp in position is beyond me

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

I'm sure i'm not the only one who thinks like that, but limping lowers ur expected value for basically any decent hand preflop and on the flop.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

i've recently come to the opposite conclusion. Agaisnt most of my opponents I can turn alot of folding hands into limping hands where I had been folding.

then there are people who raise your limps an optimal % of the time and you have to adjust to mostly raise/fold.

And then.....there are people who raise your limps too much, where you might be better off limping some decent hands, letting them raise, and calling. I find that most of the time on FTP I bet a big (often potsize) cbet out of them on the flop, and some often almost always double barrel as well.

I really like this line as it gets my opponents to do alot of OOP bluffing.

So yeah, I like limping against nonoptimal opponents in either direction.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

Slightly off-topic:

I've started very aggressively attacking frequent limpers in HUSNGs, raising to 4x, with most hands that I would raise from the button, backing off if they call too many attacks.

Would you say this is attacking too often or too much (what is optimal, exactly?), and is it actually a good idea to try to attack so much at the lower buyins where people are limping very frequently? I found I was getting a *lot* more folds than I expected to, which is why I started being really aggressive with it, but I might have gone overboard. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]
why anyone would limp in position is beyond me

[/ QUOTE ]

Because against tight/passive players, you can turn trash hands into small winners by bluffing effectively postflop.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Slightly off-topic:

I've started very aggressively attacking frequent limpers in HUSNGs, raising to 4x, with most hands that I would raise from the button, backing off if they call too many attacks.

Would you say this is attacking too often or too much (what is optimal, exactly?), and is it actually a good idea to try to attack so much at the lower buyins where people are limping very frequently? I found I was getting a *lot* more folds than I expected to, which is why I started being really aggressive with it, but I might have gone overboard. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is likely that you raise too many limps. Against players like you I would begin to limp some nice hands and either just call your raise or LRR.

As for what % you should be raising limps, I'm not sure what is optimal. I usually base my decision to limp/fold or raise/limp on feel of how my opponent will react.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

Limping is fine against frequent callers (say they call three out of four of your standard raises) and they give you a little headache postflop. if they play 'fit or fold' after your preflop raises, pumping it say MOST of the time should be okay. W regard to Phenom, I've played him a few times, and in my opinion his biggest weakness is exactly raising too often preflop, because he's much less aggressive postflop and thus fairly 'floatable'. I think he gives up most of the time after his c-bet is called, which should lead to LESS raising preflop instead of nearly every hand. I'm definitely in the limping camp. Goldmund

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Limping is fine against frequent callers (say they call three out of four of your standard raises) and they give you a little headache postflop. if they play 'fit or fold' after your preflop raises, pumping it say MOST of the time should be okay. W regard to Phenom, I've played him a few times, and in my opinion his biggest weakness is exactly raising too often preflop, because he's much less aggressive postflop and thus fairly 'floatable'. I think he gives up most of the time after his c-bet is called, which should lead to LESS raising preflop instead of nearly every hand. I'm definitely in the limping camp. Goldmund

[/ QUOTE ]


Spot on, good post.

OT:

good to see you GM, what have you been doing?

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

I don't know about HOldem HU but i play PLO8 hu and limp a ton.

I've been playing better now limping with every hand unless it's top notch. This is mostly because everyone i play raises preflop too much. (if i'm playing a weak moron ill raise more)

when you are limping 95% of the time and nobody has a clue as to what you have, they tend to overplay their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th lows and weak highs.

I also like to limp b/c it keeps the pot low and i feel like i can outplay most of these idiots after the flop and the small pots help keep the luck factor down.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

PLO8 is a _completely_ different story.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]
PLO8 is a _completely_ different story.

[/ QUOTE ]
ha_yeah_i_figured_that_there_just_isn't_that_many_ people_that_talk_about_huPLO8sngs_on_here

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PLO8 is a _completely_ different story.

[/ QUOTE ]
ha_yeah_i_figured_that_there_just_isn't_that_many_ people_that_talk_about_huPLO8sngs_on_here

[/ QUOTE ]

and thats your reasoning for coming up with utterly irrelevant stuff in a NLHE thread?

go get a cookie.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PLO8 is a _completely_ different story.

[/ QUOTE ]
ha_yeah_i_figured_that_there_just_isn't_that_many_ people_that_talk_about_huPLO8sngs_on_here

[/ QUOTE ]

and thats your reasoning for coming up with utterly irrelevant stuff in a NLHE thread?

go get a cookie.

[/ QUOTE ]

and where in this thread does it say that it's a "NLHE" thread?

All i saw was HU sit n go.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

When the effective stack is more then 20 bbs I dont limp at all. I min raise about 90% of my hands and fold the rest. I use to limp some and try to exploit my opponents pre flop holes but I found it just wasn't worth the effort. The very small profit I was getting wasn't worth the effort it took to exploit their pre flop holes. My preflop strategy is designed to cause my opponent to play as many hands OOP as possible while being as non exploitable as possible. I like to lull my opponents into to calling to many hands oop and then exploit that post flop.

Once the effective stack is less then 20 bbs my positional advantage has decreased to the point where I want them to fold. If I continued to raise 90% of my hands my opponent could easily exploit this. I will start raising the bb 3x and up while also limping and folding an optimal range based on my opponent.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

Thanks for the kind words Hra (Did you know we're from the same town?) I have moved to Spain, been giving my girfriend a hard time, doing some lurking here....and ehhh... playing poker :-). Later

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure i'm not the only one who thinks like that, but limping lowers ur expected value for basically any decent hand preflop and on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phenom, how do you address this type of player that Dippy mentions:

[ QUOTE ]
If the opponent usually either folds or raises to a pf bet, but is terribly loose post and not very perceptive, then it would make sense to limp very often.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the type of player I will limp a lot against. I can see an argument being made for bigger pots equates to bigger postflop mistakes by your opponent. Is there any other good argument?

[ QUOTE ]
When the effective stack is more then 20 bbs I dont limp at all. I min raise about 90% of my hands and fold the rest. I use to limp some and try to exploit my opponents pre flop holes but I found it just wasn't worth the effort. The very small profit I was getting wasn't worth the effort it took to exploit their pre flop holes. My preflop strategy is designed to cause my opponent to play as many hands OOP as possible while being as non exploitable as possible. I like to lull my opponents into to calling to many hands oop and then exploit that post flop.

Once the effective stack is less then 20 bbs my positional advantage has decreased to the point where I want them to fold. If I continued to raise 90% of my hands my opponent could easily exploit this. I will start raising the bb 3x and up while also limping and folding an optimal range based on my opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good post. So you'll play super loose in position by minraising a lot so that it gives you an opportunity to play more hands in position? Against an opponent who calls a lot, can't the same argument as above be made? By making it 3x instead of minraising, you let them make bigger mistakes by letting them play big pots OOP?

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure i'm not the only one who thinks like that, but limping lowers ur expected value for basically any decent hand preflop and on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

but phenom, isnt it true that when stacks get shallow, lots of hands are supposed to be limps? I mean let's say u've got 13bbs and you get K8o on teh button...then what?

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

nicho, raising against people like dippy described will cause a bet on all streets to be almost a double up while limping might make a 500 chip pot

indy, I meant it was for 10/20 15/30 and to an extent 25/50

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

I think it depends on your over-all strategy.

I have been testing tighter tendencies, and raising only with premium or playable hands make my opponents decisions easier, so yeah, limping sounds good if you mix it up.

What about the player that will not play anything but premiums to a raise? I started limping to them, only to see them fold on the flop. Why would I want to waste my time, and tourney time, limping when I am going to get the same points anyways? And I won't have to worry about what random hand they have?

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Against an opponent who calls a lot, can't the same argument as above be made? By making it 3x instead of minraising, you let them make bigger mistakes by letting them play big pots OOP?

.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against certain loose passive opponents Im sure its positive ev to raise larger then 2x. Although I lose a little profit by still min raising these opponents I do it for a few reasons. First of all by keeping the pot smaller I decrease my fluctuation and put them in a position to make bigger mistakes post flop. Hu Sngs start out short anyway with only a 75bb effective stack and I prefer the extra room accorded from a min raise.


That being said the main reason why I stick to a standard pre flop min raise strategy is that i am usually multi tabling and I am most comfortable with it. I have stream lined my game to the point where every bet or raise is always the same except in rare cases. I min raise pre flop and bet or raise 3/4 the pot on all streets. This has really simplified my decisions while also giving away as little information as possible. This is probably a point for another discussion but it is taking my game to the next level. When the decision is between betting or checking as opposed to how much to bet or checking the decisions become so much clearer. By simplifing the game I am also becoming much more keen at picking up my opponents tendencies which I think more then makes up for any ev I am losing in making bigger or smaller bets. Instead of maximizing each bet or each match I am devolping a strategy that is as non exploitable as possible.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

kidling that is really interesting stuff. I've never heard of someone using that type of strategy here, but I've certainly played against that strategy.

I'm really curious what kind of roi at what levels you have been getting with it.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm really curious what kind of roi at what levels you have been getting with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been tinkering with this for about the last 1000 hu matches. Playing the 100s and 200s its 11 percent for the last 1000. Its about the same as the 3000 before that but I can multi table easier and play longer sessions. The more I use it the more comfortable I am with it. Using the bet pot script I use a 1 .75 .75 .75 line. The preflop bet pot is for my bb reraises while I just use the min raise for the sb. I am down to using only three buttons in most matches although I do go all in at times.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

With moderate/deep stacks in NL, I play entirely limp/raise otb (i.e., fold 0% in position).

You are getting 3:1 immediate odds with position throughout the hand, so not folding is clearly correct IN A VACUUM.

Would anyone disagree with that statement? So the problem becomes metaconcerns. You're limping your weaker hands, and Villain begins raising widely OOP. My solution is to simply readjust. I'll increase my limp/raise ratio, and force Villain to play a guessing game if he wants to build a big pot OOP. The downside is you'll lose value, on average, with your stronger hands. But the value you get from being able to play 100% of hands otb more than compensates for this, IMO.

-- Collin

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]
With moderate/deep stacks in NL, I play entirely limp/raise otb (i.e., fold 0% in position).

You are getting 3:1 immediate odds with position throughout the hand, so not folding is clearly correct IN A VACUUM.

Would anyone disagree with that statement? So the problem becomes metaconcerns. You're limping your weaker hands, and Villain begins raising widely OOP. My solution is to simply readjust. I'll increase my limp/raise ratio, and force Villain to play a guessing game if he wants to build a big pot OOP. The downside is you'll lose value, on average, with your stronger hands. But the value you get from being able to play 100% of hands otb more than compensates for this, IMO.

-- Collin

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with never folding from the button regardless of your stacks. Even if an argument could be made for limping 72o from the button as being less -EV than folding it (which I find to be quite a stretch), I believe it would be extremely difficult to put forth an argument that it is positive in terms of $/hr.

Beyond calling a sub-min-raise all in, I don't really see value in voluntarily playing hands such as 72 82 83 92 etc. regardless of stack sizes or position.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

I also disagree with ALWAYS limping. It is the basic Harrington strategy and I've used it with mixed success. I then started a raise/fold method OTB with much better, but probably not optimal success. I'm interested in changing gears mid match. Assume a loose/passive, but straight forward opponent. If I start out playing raise/fold then how large does the effective stack have to be before I start limping some hands? <15BB? 20?

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also disagree with ALWAYS limping.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, I'm not saying to always limp and not raise. I'm only arguing against button open-folding.

-- Collin

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

I don't think never folding the button is optimal either. especially at like 5 - 10BBs.

You either have to give up your EV from raising because you have to trap so much, or you make it easy for your opponent to raise you off.

If you are playing a thinking opponent it isn't worth all that trouble just so you can see the flop with 72o.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

Collin, say you limp with your 72 and your opponent minraises. Now, again, you're getting 3:1 with 72 and you're in position, so you have to call according to that logic. But look what happened: you've now invested 1.5bb with 72.

What now?

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

Yeah, I know. I should have said "never folding on the button".

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

dboy, I agree that short-stacked is a different scenario, and with 5-10 BB I would generally play raise/fold OTB. Sorry if I didn't make that distinction in my original post.

Nihcomacheo, you pose the question:

[ QUOTE ]
Collin, say you limp with your 72 and your opponent minraises. Now, again, you're getting 3:1 with 72 and you're in position, so you have to call according to that logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you would absolutely call. Each decision is independent of prior decisions, of course, so you would still definitely call getting 3:1 with position. This may not be the ideal situation, nor is it when your opponent makes a conventional attack of ~4 BB against your button limp and forces you off the hand. But if you're able to re-adjust to your opponent's adjustment of raising more often OOP, I still think you're getting the best of it getting to play every button. Meanwhile, if your opponent is routinely min-raising your button limps, this would be a particularly weak adjustment because he is simply adding pot-sweeteners OOP. And unless he has an overpair, your hand is no worse than a 70-30 dog. Since your immediate odds are better than that AND you have position throughout the hand, you should be doing just fine in those less common min-raise scenarios.

- Collin

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

Collin , you aren't necessarily getting 3:1 pot odds on the button with your weakest hands . When you factor in all the raises , or even all the times when you will be forced to fold , you are actually costing yourself money to be playing junk in position .

You should almost always raise or fold on the button , but I've played against many opponents by simply limping all hands I would have raised with against others .If your opponent is likely to attack your limps with aggression , then it's my belief that limping otb can be superior to raising , to set up traps postflop .

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

The issue I have with you logic Collin is that you are not going to get paid properly with 72 off to be properly. What kind of flop are you expecting?

It would have to be a flop that would not only make your opponent call, but be willing to stack off with whatever random hand he has, I think. What do you do exactly, on a flop such a 753? Your opponent bets. Are they betting with middle pair, a draw, a better 7?

What if the flop is say 974 with a possible flush draw. You bet and your opponent calls? Does he have AK, two pair, a nine, an over that he didn't want to raise with, a better 7, or an actual flush draw. What if he really only has 46 but wants to make a play once that flush gets there?

Everything works great in math-land, but the problem with HU is that you need to be able to envision the entire situation before you can make a judgement about the value of your hand.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The issue I have with you logic Collin is that you are not going to get paid properly with 72 off to be properly. What kind of flop are you expecting?

It would have to be a flop that would not only make your opponent call, but be willing to stack off with whatever random hand he has, I think. What do you do exactly, on a flop such a 753? Your opponent bets. Are they betting with middle pair, a draw, a better 7?

What if the flop is say 974 with a possible flush draw. You bet and your opponent calls? Does he have AK, two pair, a nine, an over that he didn't want to raise with, a better 7, or an actual flush draw. What if he really only has 46 but wants to make a play once that flush gets there?

Everything works great in math-land, but the problem with HU is that you need to be able to envision the entire situation before you can make a judgement about the value of your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are all good questions, but you do realise that you have to ask these questions with EVERY hand you play right? Not just for 72o.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The issue I have with you logic Collin is that you are not going to get paid properly with 72 off to be properly. What kind of flop are you expecting?

It would have to be a flop that would not only make your opponent call, but be willing to stack off with whatever random hand he has, I think. What do you do exactly, on a flop such a 753? Your opponent bets. Are they betting with middle pair, a draw, a better 7?

What if the flop is say 974 with a possible flush draw. You bet and your opponent calls? Does he have AK, two pair, a nine, an over that he didn't want to raise with, a better 7, or an actual flush draw. What if he really only has 46 but wants to make a play once that flush gets there?

Everything works great in math-land, but the problem with HU is that you need to be able to envision the entire situation before you can make a judgement about the value of your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are all good questions, but you do realise that you have to ask these questions with EVERY hand you play right? Not just for 72o.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue with 72o (and similar hands) is that there isn't really any normal flop you can confidently get paid on. With no possible straights or flush draws you are playing purely on pairs, and unless you hit 2 pair or better there isn't anything that you can confidently be putting your money in with.

Re: HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.
 

Yes, Bork, that was my entire point. We even have to figure out how to gain the maximum from Aces. I think that if you are going to consider a hand like 72o, you should raise with it, because that at least adds FE.