[Stealthy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It depends how much your opponent sucks. The more he sucks, the better idea it is to limp.



[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expand on this a little. Are you simply talking about limping if villains will never raise your limps when you hand is weak. Or does it go further to include the weaker villains who never fold pre to raises anyway and will not fold any part even to 2 barrells. If it does include the latter it would kind of make sense to allow you to play small ball with your weaker hands whilst punishing them with raises and value bets with your stronger ones.

[/ QUOTE ]


If he's passive and never raises your limps, you limp your bad hands (which would ordinarily be mucked) because he's not going to raise them out of the pot, and therefore you can eke out a small win with them.

If he's a calling station and never folds pre, then you make what is ordinarily a mistake and stop raising as much; you limp with some borderline "default raise" hands with no high card strength like 53s and 76o and J4s because you don't have fold equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had given this a lot of thought today after my post and came to the same conclusions that the only hands I would want to limp v a guy who never folds his BB but will not raise limps is the speculative hands like 54s that cannot win without improving. Still think raising is the correct default in 90%+ of the time your hand is playable but maybe being more selective on making C bets. No point trying to force through double barrells when he doesn't want to dump his 93o on the KQ37 board.