why NOT to limp preflop - 6max NL

[KRANTZ]

cero, if you read everything through you'll notice my examples were admittedly a bit flawed in that it could go either way. but 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.

i don't think i say open limping is ALWAYS worse, but then again, i may have (this post is 6 months old). but the FACT remains that in 6-handed play, FOR THE MOST PART, raising is preferable. the point is to illustrate the reasons to build a preflop strategy around raising and why it's important to do that, as well as show that open raising is a means to an end that open limping will not often achieve IN 6max.

there are always exceptions. i often say that there are many in the online game, or on these forums, that have a handbook for how to play. and while they may carve out a decent winrate, your last paragraph rings true: "you won't dominate those games, or beat the toughest games, until your strategy is dynamic..." extremely, extremely important that players realize this and get better at this.

your examples are just as arbitrary as the ones that i gave, obviously. hopefully people can come away from our nitpicking and understand the idea behind that last paragraph.

[jlocdog]

StevePa wrote a post in MTT about 'exploitability' and what it actually means and how it can get easily distorted into thinking one way of playing is exploitable, etc...

This concept here seems to fall into that. If you are not changing your game to the dynamics of the table and adjusting constantly to your opponents then your play becomes exploitable. The same play that you were exploiting your opponents weaknesses are now actually your weaknesses. What may not look like a +EV play, or the most +EV play at that momment actually may very well be. Recognizing that your opponent has adjusted to your constant pounding and 3-betting may have made him change his game to now limp reraise more and put you in tough spots. Now limping behind or open limping may actually be optimal for this very momment/hand/orbit/hr./till it isn't.

The most frustrating thing that occurs to me when playing a tough opponent isn't them constantly raising. It is when I feel they are always one move ahead of me. When I decide to adapt to my surroundings but when I do I find they have adapted to my adaption. When Mr. aggro open limps it can really throw you off. It may make you more confused then if would have just made his standard raise. Now you find yourself in a guessing game throughout. As long as he will openlimp with AA/KK as he will with 89s as he will with KT as he will with garbage, his range will be just as much a mistery as if he raised.

Not to say I open limp alot or much at all, but to discount it as a weapon seems silly. I think I don't do it often because it will take yet another skill set to do so and I havn't practiced it that often. Maybe something different, I don't know. One way to be able to open limp and not worry constant about raises is to limp reraise more liberally it seems. I guess it is the same as 3-betting more liberally. Granted you will be OOP a bit more (but not always since the blinds can be the raisers) but a limp reraise also garners that much more respect I feel and maybe will neutralize the slight disadvantage.

[cero_z]

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.

[TheWorstPlayer]

cero,

I think he was referring to this part of one of his posts:

"-some situations in 6max where if you raise, you are constantly 3-bet by someone very good with a wide range. mixing in limps and limp reraises is an effective counter strategy and probably not as swingy as getting involved in the 3-bet/4-bet wars that seem to have taken hold of the games lately"

that seems similar to your 22 example.

TWP

[KRANTZ]

Hi cero_z,

A feather in your cap.

[THEOSU]

krantz,

are you advocating never limping the button behind a limper or two with a hand like 86s, but instead raising or folding the hand?

[WiltOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
krantz,

are you advocating never limping the button behind a limper or two with a hand like 86s, but instead raising or folding the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty confident he would advocate raising in this spot.

KoW

[KRANTZ]

[ QUOTE ]
krantz,

are you advocating never limping the button behind a limper or two with a hand like 86s, but instead raising or folding the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

the OP was about open limping primarily. i would advocate raising over limping in your situation, and that is all.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
krantz,

are you advocating never limping the button behind a limper or two with a hand like 86s, but instead raising or folding the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
In the normal SSNL/MSNL games, raising here will be more profitable than limping. But I'm pretty sure the OP is talking about OPEN raising vs. OPEN limping.

[cero_z]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi cero_z,

A feather in your cap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh I'm not sure what this means. I hope I don't even have to say this, but just in case: I'm not attacking you personally with these posts; I'm trying to debate something I disagree with. I respect your play and thinking. If you were talking about the phrase TWP highlighted, I still see a distinction to be made between that situation and my examples (I was not talking about reducing swings, e.g.), but either way, it's all good. I'm glad these types of discussions are taking place in some NL forum.