Re: why NOT to limp preflop - 6max NL
Hi KRANTZ,
[ QUOTE ]
i do account for scenarios in which limping may be more profitable than raising.
the player you describe in your 22 example is one which i account for- one where if you limp and call a raise you do have implied odds to play 22 because he will either bluff maniacally or pay you off with any piece/pair should you flop a set. you'll also get away much cheaper since it will be extremely difficult to play a raised pot vs him and push him off any piece of the board.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've scanned your post carefully, and I don't see where you accounted for this. You have this sentence:
[ QUOTE ]
The only time I would advocate limping is when there’s some kind of giant fish at the table who’ll pay off like a slot machine when you hit. Otherwise, RAISE.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is not the same thing as what I said, and in fact, I don't think this sentence is a valid reason on its own for limping pre-flop. Some information about stack sizes would have to be included, or there's no way to determine which play would be better.
As for my examples being arbitrary, or my point being nit-picking, I disagree. I used examples to illustrate the common situations in which implied odds considerations and opponents' tendencies indicate that limping is clearly the better option. My point was that the thesis of your original post and the evidence you provided are mostly wrong.
As for why you should build your basic strategy around raising instead of limping, I agree that if you're going to emphasize one, raising is the better one. But 1) it's not clear from your OP that this was the intent of your post--it would appear that you intended to convince us that open-limping was almost always bad in 6-max games, and 2)I don't accept that you can't build a formidable basic strategy that includes a mixed pre-flop strategy comprised partially of open-limps.
Your post is good in that it conveys that a strategy based PRIMARILY on open-limping would not be as profitable as one based on open-raising. The evidence you provide is not compelling, though, and IMO it takes the idea too far, either proposing directly or implying that open-limping with regularity is wrong, even if it's done the minority of the time.
|