The easiest way to show that there is no overarching LOGICAL proof that limping must be wrong is to imagine that the small blind on the button is much more than half the big blind. Now you would limp with your worst hands rather than fold. And you would also sometimes limp with other hands to keep him from automatically raising your limps.

Whether this concept extends to a small blind that is half the big blind is not clear.

It is clear at certain stack depths. This has been proven to pretty confident extent.

Oh, I somehow missed the earlier posts. Excellent info. Thanks for the additional details.

Notice though that pure logic would, I think, be able to prove that limping can't be optimum as the small blind approaches zero/

i don't really agree with that, the percentage of the time you'd limp would decrease, but I imagine that limping is part of an optimal strategy in the BTN tbf, which would be similar to what you're saying.

I doubt the huhu nlh tourney limping strategy, but if open raising minimum makes the pot too big, or open raising all in is too much, then, but one could do both.

Limping when the sb is bigger, is like making one the bb when being oop, that position also might better be limping with the whole range, or split it, until exploiting, that in practice usually is better, exploiting, but it could play much like it would be the bb huhu.

Limping in limit omaha8, keeps the pot smaller, the bb having less pot size to bully, if againm the bb is such, and again, one could split the range in a balanced manner. Limping as a trap also is profitable vs some players and then the first limps would all be with competitive hands.

Limping in big bet poker, with smaller stacks, to have a bigger positional edge as the oop could just eliminate some of it sort of similarly to oop bullying in any game. Open raising up to max with all hands or a range, in big bet poker with large enough stacks and a good defense, must be the best as bigger pots ip.

Limping in limit holdem, feels not right, as no pot size considerations if having a good defense, though the same is so for all limit poker then, but in omaha8 the pots are split often and it is tough to defend until maybe if the bully always 3bs, always at least ccbets, with some cccbets, but i dont know the exact standards for omaha8.

I have also done pretty boring limping when starting a plo table, to get rid of any boloney, putting the opponent in a situation where he isnt as comfortable, but vs fish the pot is just too small until one is trying to get a line first, like playing a tournament where it is so because of smaller blinds for a start.

I just realized that the above thought assumes that the big blind is not live.

When ranges are very wide, pre-flop domination is rarely a factor, match ups rarely get beyond 60/40 either way and I'm rarely folding the button anyway.

I think position is the dominating factor for raising a full range in HU so I don't think the SB size would change my thinking much.

But then, I'm used to playing wide in most NLH cash game formats. It may be different for tighter styles.