This thread is to defend what I'm pretty sure will be a reasonably unpopular viewpoint around these parts, simply:
Open-limping is good.
Even at 6-max.
Even on the Button.

(But only with the right kind of hand).

Quite simply, we want implied odds. So, with hands that kinda suck except for implied odds, we want to open limp.

So, give yourself an open limping range of around 22-TT, 32s-QJs.

Good implied odds hands. Not good enough to be raise.

But, you say, we cannot be balanced! We can!

Simply add some balancing hands to your range.

Now, we:

Open-limp: AA, 22-TT, 32s-QJs, 72o, 32o, K9o.
We have some hands from every end of the spectrum, and we are balance.

And we can counter by raising: JJ-KK, AK-AJ, KQs, 32o-QJo. Also balanced and balanced with the limping range.

So, why do we want to do this?

IMPLIED ODDS!

Scenario #1 (2 hands)
Hero has JT

Hero raises to $7, BB calls

flop A52.

BB checks, Hero bets $10, BB raises to $35, Hero folds.


Hero has 98

Hero raises to $7, BB calls

flop A52

BB checks, Hero bets $10, BB raises to $35, Hero goes all-in, BB (scared of AK,AQ b/c Hero raised pf) folds.

OVER THOSE TWO HANDS WE WON $25

Now, see them when limping

Hand 1, Hero calls, BB checks, BB bets flop, Hero folds, loses $2

Hand 2, Hero calls, BB checks, BB checks flop with TT, Hero bets, BB raises, Hero goes all in. Now BB isnt scared b/c we limped pf and calls, giving us much more implied odds.

NOW WE WON $198

Obviously this scenario is best case. But you can see why open-limping is not such a bad play after all if done with proper balance.

so you are saying that people will go broke with middle pair on a one suited flop if we just limp preflop?

well, if thats true, limping is indeed better.

So you want to open-limp the button with 72o for balance?

You're missing way too much value on your good hands, and missing plenty of blind stealing opportunities. There's a reason it's an unpopular viewpoint around here.

There's also reverse implied odds by limping with something like 89s or 9Ts. If you hit the flop your most likely hand will be 2nd or 3rd pair and maybe top pair if you're lucky. Makes a lot of 2nd best hands.

Also what do you do when you open limp and someone raises? Would be horrible to limp and fold, that's just throwing away 1bb. Then if you call you're most likely in with a mediocre hand, possibly pop, against an opponent who has shown aggression. That's just horrible. How ever you put it I hate open limping and love it when my table is full of open limpers.

But sure I don't mind you preaching about open limping I hope you get a lot of followers who can then fill my tables

What the hell is going on in hand #2?

It is considered bad for a reason. It looks like you registered for 2p2 account yesterday and decided that since you like to open limp yourself, but read in these forums that its bad, you would try to concoct a theory to defend your bad play. I'm sorry, but open limping seems worse than before after reading your post.

By open limping you are giving up the initiative in the hand and leaving money on the table.

By raising you pick up the blinds a lot - especially obvious in late position.

You can also build a pot of dead money preflop and then take it away later in the hand.

Raising allows us to play in position more often which means more profits obviously. It also helps us to define villains range more, especially when playing against the BB who has any two cards in an unraised pot.

Some of those hands you think are not good enough to raise with are actually very good to raise with. Implied odds are great to have like calling an UTG raise with a pp against a player who stacks off with top pair or overpairs. But if you are limping in, who are you trying to get implied odds from? Nobody has shown any interest in the hand yet. I isolate open limpers with a super wide range and consider myself fairly decent at hand reading so I very rarely pay off a set. You're not getting the implied odds you think that you're getting unless all the players you play against are really horrible.



So now you're taking a bad strategy and making it worse by limping 72o? What does putting money in with the worst possible hands accomplish other than donating money to players that raise your limps. All this is going to do is make it so that you are forced to limp/fold preflop even more often than you were when you had 32s as a part of your limping range. If you are considering limping 32s and calling raises with it oop then you're just lighting even more money on fire.

Open limping is generally always bad except for a few rare cases where specific conditions make it good. I've seen some better arguments on this site for why it can be good and those posters - as flawed as their thinking was - look genuinely brilliant compared this.



Really? You give an example of a hand that didn't work out this time, but if you cannot see how raising that hand pre and betting that flop is going to net you a lot of $$ in the long run then I dunno what to tell you.

Quote:

Hero has 98 Hero raises to $7, BB calls flop A52 BB checks, Hero bets $10, BB raises to $35, Hero goes all-in, BB (scared of AK,AQ b/c Hero raised pf) folds. OVER THOSE TWO HANDS WE WON $25

If villain is folding at this point because he scared of AK/AQ then he is probably a really bad player...

Quote:

Now, see them when limping Hand 1, Hero calls, BB checks, BB bets flop, Hero folds, loses $2 Hand 2, Hero calls, BB checks, BB checks flop with TT, Hero bets, BB raises, Hero goes all in. Now BB isnt scared b/c we limped pf and calls, giving us much more implied odds. NOW WE WON $198 Obviously this scenario is best case. But you can see why open-limping is not such a bad play after all if done with proper balance.

In hand #1 you only lose $2 but you put yourself in a situation where always lose $2 unless you hit the flop, in which case you don't get paid off as often as you would like. I'd much rather be raising to $6 preflop and picking up villain's $6 otf the majority of the time.

In hand #2 villain is still uber bad. He checks preflop with TT when he should be raising and then stacks off with a pair against a guy who always limps pre and folds so that he only loses $2 in the hand.

I could just as easily make up hand histories where things go wrong when you limp and when you big pots when you raise.

OP, there's never a need to play 72o for balance. Balance involves having value vs bluffs, and all parts of the board covered. We can play the 54s.

You're elaborate network of limping hands will be extremely hard to play profitably, both pre and post flop. So you throw in AA as a balance for all your weak limps. This isn't enough strength to be balanced, especially if you plan on limp-reraising the AA. In this case you'd need several other hands to limp-reraise for value, which are not exactly AA, and a few combos as limp re-raise bluffs. You're making the game way tougher than it needs to be.

thank you for keeping poker alive OP

i like how TT on the button is not good enough to open-raise

I know it's not popular to say so on this forum, but I think there are situations where open-limping is a good strategy, and perhaps even the optimal strategy. Those situations are pretty rare in NLH, but are pretty common in limit poker if you play with bad players. In their advanced 7-stud book, Sklansky et al talk about why limping in 7-stud is usually best in super-loose games with players who never fold. Now a big reason for that is that in limit games, if you build a big pot early, you're almost always obligated by pot odds to chase later, so by limping instead of raising on 3rd street, you can keep the pot small and preserve your option to fold on later streets - you have an edge at those games by folding more often than your loose opponents. But another reason to limp is that you can invest very little early and only commit money once you're more certain you will win the pot.

I think the same situation can come up in super-loose NLH games against really bad opponents. Then many of the reasons for raising preflop don't apply. We don't get any information about opponents' hands if they are calling no matter what; we don't thin the field if no one ever folds; we can't set up bluffs later if our opponents are unbluffable; and we can't steal if our opponents call every time. So our main reason to raise is thus for value, and if we are only going to play hands we can raise for value, we end up playing a tight range in a game where we probably want to play a wide range. In these games, we can more than make up for any value we lose by not raising pre by playing more flops and getting more value postflop.

Now, the situation I'm talking about is one I think you only really find in freerolls, really bad home games, and super-low stakes online games. In any game played with even remotely competent players, I can't make any kind of argument for open-limping. And it's the table situation that determines whether limping is good, and not the cards you're looking at. I don't agree at all with the original post. The big problem with limping hands like 98s is that *everyone* who limps does it with suited cards. So any player with 14 brain cells will be paranoid of flushes if a limper is in the pot. If you do make a flush, and you end up in a big pot with a good player, you'll almost always be losing your stack to a better flush. So I think you end up denying yourself implied odds (and giving yourself reverse implied odds) by limping your 98s instead of raising it. That is, you're achieving the exact opposite of your stated objective.

ZOMG you're behind or flipping preflop with so many hands!

Sticky this

Poker will never die because some people refuse to believe they aren't smarter than everyone else.

You guys got leveled so hard, there is no way this thread is legit.

I mean, obviously. The bit where the guy with TT stacks off on an A25 suited board because, well, you can't have AK since you didn't raise, so TT just has to be good... um...

Still, I don't think there's anything wrong with steering it to a real conversation about when limping might be appropriate, regardless of the OP's intentions. My answer is: rarely, but not quite never.