Only raising preflop? Never limp?

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting point is maybe that if there is a raise from EP and a few callers, you might though be able to play SC's or suited one gappers from the blinds because you have good relative position. How do others think about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, but a little deeper than I wanted to go into when I posted. A genuine consideration, though. Care to elaborate?

[TheWorm967]

What if you get a hand like QJo or 79s on the button with one or two callers? Do you raise with these types of hands 100% of the time? Is it ever appropriate to call on the button or in LP?

[Larude]

[ QUOTE ]
Good point, but a little deeper than I wanted to go into when I posted. A genuine consideration, though. Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well my theoretical elaborations probably leak real quality [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]. Also I think another thread might be a better place to discuss it so you are right (implicitly) that my post was a little beside the point.

In reaction to worm I would like to say that we have to make a distinction between openraising and raising a couple of limpers, this thread is about openraising. I saw in another thread an article on this on flopturnriver.com; that looked quit good to me. Also I like Carters preflopmixingstrategy; in addition: at tight tables I would raise even more hands. And I wouldn't raise/play suited aces and suited one gappers most of the time until from MP2. At aggressive tables you would be better off folding the lower SC's (87s-54s)in early position and if you play them raise so you are you more in charge. On more passive tables you could also fold sometimes some lower SC's from EP.

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
What if you get a hand like QJo or 79s on the button with one or two callers?

[/ QUOTE ]

I fold those hands, although it might be ok to limp if no one else has raised, provided stacks are deep.

Take a look at Carter's Calling a Tight Raiser thread. It is excelent.

[QTip]

One thing i really like about the limping strategy in small stakes is this fact. I've thought a lot about this and watched it happen as well. I think it could be different for different stakes (since they generally produce different types of players). What I'm trying to say is this:

When you're against opponents that are really bad, as in will go very deep with tp and so forth, I think you're a lot better off limping in with hands that can produce big hands. This seems to be especially true in the level I'm playing now where they seem to have some PF sense, but are just really terrible postflop. So, if I have 88 and it's folded to me in MP, I could be missing out on a really big pot if I raise and kick them out before I let them catch top pair or whatever.

Now, here's a different thought that I had, and I'm not sure what I think about this yet or not. However, let's say that there's a player behind you that loves to raise PF. Would it makes sense to just limp that 88 again so that when he raises, you get to see the flop for 5bb instead of 15 or whatever after he reraises?

[phydaux]

I don't know that I'd raise in MP with 88. I think I'd limp with the intention of calling a small raise from LP or the Blinds.

There's an old trick mid-stakes players use to help them improve their post-flop play. They drop down to stakes where 3-5 buy-ins won't matter to their BR, and then they play every hand, usually raising every hand pre-flop.

Well, those stakes that don't matter at all to those players are exactly the stakes that I play regularly.

So every now and then I find myself at a table with a player who is playing every hand and raising every hand pre-flop. I never raise even my big pocket pairs when I'm at those tables. I limp, fully expecting to have the LAG raise me. Then I either call or re-raise.

[zyrrth]

At very passive tables (NL10 and below) I open limp hands like SC up to QJs, PP up to 88/99, suited Aces up to A9s and maybe Kxs from early/middle position 'cause I can be pretty sure to see a flop for 4/5 or maybe even 1bb 90% of the time. The downside is that it's sometimes difficult to get your stack in cause the pot is smaller on the flop.
Although this seems to work for me I still don't really like to play this way because I'm afraid to play too passive later at higher stakes when the play becomes more aggressive preflop.

[five4suited]

Qtip, I'm wondering where your success with limping to allow others in comes from. Is it that they're truly terrible (and that when they have a hand, it might as well be face-up), you're good at reading hands AND getting away from them, or something else/combo therein?

I ask because I find that those players will call a pf raise as often as not, and since I have trouble just saying no to pretty good hands at times, letting LP players or the blinds in for cheap can be disastrous.

In reply to your question, I'd say it depends on whether others are more likely to come along if he raises, but not if you do, and how often he'll cbet, to start with. It seems to me that unless he's guaranteed to stack off when you hit that set, you'll need to open the playbook up a bit over time, and 3-bet him pf sometimes, bet into/CR him on the flop, or maybe call his flop bet and donk the turn, etc...

otoh, I'm not very good at poker and thinking too much is pretty much the bane of my existence.

[diebitter]

limping is actually not a bad training tool for hand reading. In passive games.

You see a lot of cheap flops, it's therefore easier to fold, and you tend to pay attention and watch what happens.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
Qtip, I'm wondering where your success with limping to allow others in comes from. Is it that they're truly terrible (and that when they have a hand, it might as well be face-up), you're good at reading hands AND getting away from them, or something else/combo therein?

I ask because I find that those players will call a pf raise as often as not, and since I have trouble just saying no to pretty good hands at times, letting LP players or the blinds in for cheap can be disastrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more the combination of them folding hands PF to raises, but really sucking postflop. The hands that I like limping in with at that point are pps and like Axs where you can land a really big hand like the set of nut flush. Whereas, if you raised, it often just folds around not giving you a chance to cash in..compared to just winning the blinds. Of course, I'm not saying this is my sop, just that with players that go way too far with weak hands, I think we're better off letting them flop. At NL25, I've seen plenty of players like this. Stats in the upper 20s, that have some PF selection, but will c/c a psb all the way with middle pair, underpair or tpgk or whatever. Instead of raising and getting the blinds only, I think we're a lot better off getting to the point where we can exploit their weakness.