Two strategic Full-Ring issues - any consensus here?

[zal3]

I’ve been searching through this forum for advice. Two key strategic issues often arise that seem to be controversial.

I don’t have the stats to prove anything – but many of you guys surely do.
I’m thinking only in terms of FULL RING (8-10 players).
I would LOVE to hear what strong players think about these issues.


Here goes:

When is limp-reraising big pairs from EP more +EV than raising?
Obviously, some aggressive players are required at the tables.
-And if conditions dictate that AA/KK best be played for a limp, what other hands do you also limp or raise from early position?

Some older poster showed PT stats that AA/KK were hugely more profitable when limped from EP than when openraised.

I've seen classic threads by ML4L and Matt Flynn on this. There are also more recent ones at the small stakes forum. But they are quite disparate...

When are small PPs (22-44) NOT profitable to open-limp when first in?
These play well in limped pots – unless there are 5+ limpers (risk of higher sets or megadraws). And often do OK after a limp-call with decent implied odds.


The two issues are interrelated. If you limp-reraise big hands you also "protect" small PPs that are hugely +EV in limped pots.

Conventional wisdom has it that there is a general trend to reduce openlimping at higher levels. This is obviously correct for marginal hands like Axs etc that can't stand a raise. But for "better marginals", however, this must be very dependent on stack sizes as well.

Hope to hear some opinions - especially on the limp-reraising part!

Thanks,
Zal3