why NOT to limp preflop - 6max NL

[AK47Suited]

against passive calling stations limping sometimes aint bad when they u off with any pair is all i was tryin say.

[luegofuego]

haven't read all the replies yet, but ofcourse - making the other guy to react to YOUR hand, not the other way around is all very good for very basic #ssnl reasons. agression is obviously key in NLHE. however, this brings us to a bit of a pet subject of mine: there are more ways to put pressure on than raising preflop. most postflop phobic 2+2 tags seem to have missed this. saying that raising > limping preflop just like that makes no sense.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
Mixing up ur game and limping here and there is good.

Say you have 33, and u open for a raise and get re-raised u cant call now. But if you limp knowing ur going get raised a lil bit you have the odds to call for a set.

Also I like limping KQ, AJ type hands to win a small pots, I really upped my profitably with these hands by limping in bad position instead of folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

solid.

in all seriousness, relatively speaking i play a more passive game PF than what is often necessary in the online games. i only play live, and 95% of the people i play against are clueless. in other words, they don't pay attention or care about hand ranges, equity against those hand ranges, the odds they are getting on a bet, etc. so i limp alot more hands that i would fold in a more aggressive game because it is profitable to do so. as stated, adjusting is the key. my hold em experience began with small stakes limit, and the better games around here turned out to be the NL variety as that's where all of the fish migrated to when they began to be offered. nonetheless, your post has helped me reevaluate WHY raising is superior in certain spots even if limping is still a profitable option. thanks for the post OP. as you admitted, your examples suck but you've shed a bit of light on a couple things for me.

[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.