LP raising standards

[jii]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't get myself to raise a SC with multiple limpers because I can't understand why the benefits of a raise outweigh the benefit of having a multiway pot with these hands. Can someone address this?

[/ QUOTE ]

ajmargarine started a while ago thread where he claimed that limping with SCs from LP might be more +EV that raising them. There was much quite discussion, and finally Pokey told how the verify this with PokerTracker - AJ noticed that his raises had been much more +EV than limping. Try to search for the thread if you're interested.

[jii]

[ QUOTE ]
I need at least 7 high to raise in LP unopened pot. I will raise 56 and 64 if the table is passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually only raise with connectors and gappers that have the full straight potential at lower end, which means that 54 is the smallest.

[jii]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't need no steenkin' standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, from now on I will include disclaimer to my posts:

Table dynamics are not taken into account in this post. Poster is not responsible of any finacial loss reading this might cause.

[EMc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jouster777,

I've come to the conclusion that limping sucks

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree.

[/ QUOTE ]


I need to get the limping out of my system.


your experiment with limping didnt go great then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to get the limping out of my system.

[Jouster777]

Thanks...I'll look. If anyone has it archived please point the way.

[kslghost]

You spelled financial wrong. And as to the discussion, I think that the game changes whether it's 10-max or 6-max. In 6-max, I'm much more liable to raise nearly anything in CO and button positions. I'll even do it if there are limpers, so long as they suck really bad (that's like middle school talk!).

At 10-max, I find limping to gain a lot more use, as sometimes if there are like 4 limpers ahead of me, I don't mind playing an SC in an unraised pot.

That said, 10-max is boring as hell, and I only play 6-max now. :-D