Limp with trash = necessarily bad?

[Samara]

I was watching those loose-passive limit tables and this got me thinking. I think this is bad but the more I think about it, it seems it can be profitable.

If instead of your 20% or something vpip, if you could ALWAYS see the flop for 1 bet, would you losing much money?

Lets say this. You play winning poker with SSH strategy and so. 20-25%V$PIP, 2BB/100 etc. But instead you limp in every hand you can, hoping that when you flop big in this "extra" hands you are paying 1 bet to see, you win big.

Lets say your VPIP is 20% in a 10 handed 1/2 table.

Over 100 hands you would "pay" 35 dolars(assume you fold your SB) pre flop and see 30 flops.
Now if you limp every hand you have to pay 65 dolars more. But you are seeing 70 flops more. Assume you hit 10% of the time a big hand on the flop on these extra flops you get to see(I don't know if this is unreasonable, correct me if it is).

You would have to win a net total of 65 dolars more in this 7 hands, or lets round 10 dolars per hand you hit, or 5BB net. It is unreasonable that you can profit 5BB with a well disguised hand? Like when you hold 93 and the flop comes 937 and opponent has TT+ and the flop doesn't improve for him?

Any thoughts?

[Bruce D]

My take on this is that you pay more than 1 small bet per hand because of raises behind you when you don't have position. You must also be able to outplay your opponents on all streets, and in the small limit, this is not easy to do. When you do have a horrible holding when you have hit the flop there will be many times that you get out drawn and your opponents have odds to do so. Other things to consider are the times your opponents fold when you hit your monster and earn no extra money on further streets beyond the flop.

When you play tight, you are basically putting your money in the middle when you know it has a profitable outcome in the long term. If you have poker tracker, have a look at those hands that you have ONLY played from the big blind. You will see that no matter how well you play on the following streets that hands like 93o will lose you money in the long run.

In my opinion this is a horrible strategy.

[_TKO_]

In blackjack, many people underestimate the need to double / split in order to mitigate the house advantage. I also think that many people underestimate the value to your bottom line of raising hands for value in loose/passive games.

[ QUOTE ]
But instead you limp in every hand you can, hoping that when you flop big in this "extra" hands you are paying 1 bet to see, you win big.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has much more value in NL when you can stack someone. In limit, there are hands where it is virtually impossible to win enough to recover the one bet you put in preflop.

[Dromar]

10% is overestimating the chance you'll get something good with 93o. It's probably more like 5%.

[MTUCache]

Bad idea... by playing like a fish, you're just donating your money.

What's a "good" average session for a player? 4-6xBB/100 hands, right? You're talking about dropping 65 small bets to see those extra flops. You're going to have to start making like 40xBB/100 just to stay profitable.

On top of that, as BruceD pointed out, most of the time it's not going to be 1 small bet to see the flop, a raise behind you is going to end up costing you another bet.

Then, how good are you at reading these guys when they play every hand? How many times are you going to be able to lay-down your middle-pair, or top-pair with weak-kicker? How many times are you going to to draw to a J-high flush, or the low end of a straight? You're going to be leaking money all over the place trying to figure out where you stand on every hand.

Playing tight isn't just about getting your money in with the best hand (although that's a big part of it), it's also about making your post-flop decisions easier. By playing garbage, you're making your post-flop decisions much, much harder. You're putting a lot more pressure on yourself to read your opponents correctly, and to figure out when you have the best hand.

The small percentage of times that you flop a straight, or two-pair, just isn't going to make you enough money to pay for all the rest of the bets you'll be losing when the flop misses you.

[Samara]

[ QUOTE ]
In blackjack, many people underestimate the need to double / split in order to mitigate the house advantage. I also think that many people underestimate the value to your bottom line of raising hands for value in loose/passive games.

[/ QUOTE ]

TKO, The only thing I know about BJ is to avoid it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Please explain better, you think we should raise more hands for value in these games?

[Samara]

[ QUOTE ]
Bad idea... by playing like a fish, you're just donating your money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. But now let me change the strategy. In think that what made me wonder about this moves was that since most of the time everyone limps to see the flop (we all know those calling stations that only raise, if at all, when they have the nuts in the river), is that, when you are pretty sure you won't be raised, perhaps suited conectors and Axs are profitable?

So it goes like this:
Play your hands according to position, starting hands requirements etc.
But when the game is extremely passive, limpin with SCs small PPs and Axs, with a "fit or fold" strategy on the flop, can be profitable, specially in NL.

How does that sound?

[MTUCache]

[ QUOTE ]
How does that sound?

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot better than limping with J6o, 73o and 94s. At least you'll have some chance of hitting top-pair, or drawing to the nuts when the flop hits you.

You've still got to be wary of the top-pair/weak-kicker though (or even two-pair). With 7-8 people seeing the flop, it's a virtual guarantee that somebody is going to be drawing to a flush on every hand.

If that person is you, you're drawing to the nut-flush (or near it), and you're practically seeing cards for free, then I've got no problem at all with AXs.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain better, you think we should raise more hands for value in these games?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were on the button in the world's most loose/passive game, then I would be raising with T9s, JTs, ATs, 77+, and hands along those lines behind a lot of limpers, but still fold hands like 87o, K2o, etc. The idea is not to limp every hand, but to get more value out of a smaller number of hands.

Your restatement above is a lot better than your original post.

If you haven't read Small Stakes Holdem yet, then I suggest you do that as soon you can.

[Eyal]

The big dissadantage is that if you are very loose and only call the bb very often observer opponents will take advantage of that and raise to kick you off the round even if they hqve trash, or if they have medium hands deppending on your folding tendencies.