ITT assume limpers, and blind players to be weak players.

If there's one limper, and you're OTB, what are your pre-flop standards?
Same question, except two limpers? Three limpers? Assume normal/bad blind plays.

Okay, now same questions as above, and now you're on the cut-off, and the there are one/two/three limpers? How do your standards change?

At what point do your small edges turn into small losses? Do you prefer a "lets see the flop" strategy or a "punish the limpers/blinds" mentality in your late-pos pre-flop strategy against limpers?

Okay, perhaps to make the discussion a little simpler, here are some sample hands

1. QJs
2. 55
3. A7o
4. K8s
5. 76s

1. QJs, I think there are opportunities to raise here against limpers. Sometimes your high card strength is good enough to bet for value even with top-pair.
2. 55, I prefer to call here except against one limper, where I may raise to iso expecting a 3 way pot (one blindy call, perhaps with a card lower than a 5), and play from there. Do others just call here as well to hit a set, and pick-up a pot if checked-to? I can see both plays with merit. You can raise the cut-off to "win the button", which would definitely add some value. I think it's less important to raise OTB.
3. A7o, I fold except against one limper, where I may raise much like the 55 hand. I also see calling here as marginally profitable. I fold the cut-off even against one limper.
4. K8s, this is also limp/raise-able with one limper. More than one limper, perhaps limpin/foldin.
5. 76s, this is in limp territory, I think, and perhaps a fold against only one limp unless OTB, and you can snatch a pot if checked too (good image).

It's also hard to re-evaluate pre-flop conditions each and every as situational, but it seems like every situation is a little different. Does anyone just do hard-and-fast rules?

Yes raise!

It depends. on a lot of things.

Start by playing with Hot cold equities. Give the limpers decapitated ranges, and blinds as loose ranges as you want. Anything with massive equity advantage is a raise. Anything that is close is close.

I raise QJs against any number of limpers. I would fold PF if an early position raiser opened and there were no callers in front of me, but otherwise I can't think of a situation where I would not play it PF.

I typically raise 55 in late position against one limper and overlimp if there are 2-3 limpers (or if I am in MP). If there are a ton of limpers and I am in the CO/OTB I might raise to try to get a 4 card flop.

I typically raise A7o if I'm in the CO/BTN against one limper, but I fold it if there are multiple limpers. It has serious playability issues in a multiway pot.

I typically raise K8s against one limper and overlimp against multiple limpers.

If I have 76s, I want to play a hand with as many players as possible for as few bets as possible. I won't open limp with it but I will overlimp with it, and I don't mind being the third (or sometimes even second) cold caller with it.

I used to think like this but not anymore. Now after many hands played and much study with an equity calculator, it's just about profitability.

vs a single limper:

My favorite spot to be in is when there are tight players behind me and in the blinds. They're sitting there folding over and over waiting to "punish" me by 3 betting ATo, KQs, and 99, when they should be 3 betting much more often. This allows me to isolate limpers with quite a wide range, particularly in late position.

When they're loose preflop, I still raise more often than I would in an online game vs a limper, but not as much as vs tight opponents. Hands like 86s, K8o go down in value here for a raise to the point that raising them is likely unprofitable. However this is compensated by the value gained with big hands.

When the players behind me are good and will coldcall and 3 bet with good ranges, I tighten up significantly relative to the two example situations above.

----

vs two limpers:

I raise less than above in all situations.

----

vs three limpers:

I raise less than above in all situations.

----

vs four limpers:

I raise less than above, but I add some suited connectors that perform well in 5+ way pots. My range for raising the button here looks something like this:

ATo+, A7s+, K8s+, KJo+, Q9s+, QJo, J9s+, T8s+, 97s+, 87s, 76s, 66+.

Punishing the limpers is so in vogue now, I find myself back-raising AA-JJ, and AKs, AKo on occassion, and sometimes just calling with AK. Why spend two bets in early with AK when some idiot is going to say, omg suited connectors, and you get two bets in from everyone in a limped pot anyway? I think you need a very good reason to re-open the betting, and your targets need to be selective, not just raise the field. Don't do this against unpredictable/deceptive opponents. Do this against lambs playing suited trash.

Can't tell if serious.

Absolutely, like 1/10 times limp with AKs, let someone else raise, and then back-raise the whole field. It confuses the hell out of them. If it winds up being you, the LP raiser, and a blind, you can just call and wait for a big street, and feel your way through the hand.

It also lets them play for one bet when they should be paying two.

Deceptive plays always have a cost. You have to evaluate whether it's worth it. I play a lot of the same regs at the 8/16 where there's only one card room. If I didn't have these kinds of ploys, I'd make less money in the long run. Besides, it's totally ninja!

You can't have it both ways. You can either LRR with your monsters because it is so darned profitable to turn your hand face-up -- everybody freaking knows that you TARP!!ed them when you LRR. Or, you can claim that you're making a bunch of "balance" plays because you play with the same players all the time.
I was going to say something about fancy play syndrome, but you already said it.
This is the root of your problems. I think you're pretty conservative, and then "mix in some aggression to throw them off balance". Like Bob said, it isn't punishing the limpers. It is just taking thin value (or not so thin) preflop. It could be that people in your game are bad at aggression and are doing it at the wrong times or with the wrong hands. Good players are more aggressive and bad players in passive games aren't used to it. You can exploit maniacs easily. Think I first encountered the whole "the punish the limpers" thing being stupid and bad TAGs complaining about it in the late 90's? Early 2000's. None of this is new.

To be truly hard to read in small and mid-stakes is about just having good ranges and playing board textures correctly. The fancy LRR with your top 1.5% of hands 10% of the time doesn't buy you much. It doesn't improve your EV much or any. It makes you easy to read. If this works at all, it works because your opponents are terrible at poker. It does make you feel like you're the best player at the table. Here's a hint: you're likely the best player at the table whether or not you show them this.

The problem is that by developing a LRR strategy, you're working hard on your early position limping strategy. This won't help you at 20/40 or higher. You're putting together fancy plays that will make decent players lol to themselves and many of them will play very well against you from the first time they see you LRR. If you just value raise thin and value 3 bet well in position, you're just hard to play against. The bad habits that you're building these plays around are unprofitable in tougher games.

OK. tl;dr. You're a winning player. Good. You mostly win because you play fewer hands preflop than your bad/loose opponents. Great. You're more aggressive than they are with good hands. Very good. You sometimes randomly do weak when strong "for deception". Bad. You are convinced that these fancy plays are both profitable and like a ninja. Terrible. Keep beating them up with the good stuff, leave off the bad, and move up and profit.

lol...if by confuse, you actually mean turn your hand face up.

When the pot is bigger, there's less reason to slow play, so it makes sense to wait for a few limps, and then a raise, for you to three bet. AA-JJ, AK is a large enough range where they still don't know exactly where you're at.

While true, is it even really a goal to be truly hard to read? How many opponents are fooled by "truly hard to read" that aren't fooled by "not obvious"?

One of the best players in the local 6/12 player pool once said something interesting to me. After some 100-150 hours we had spent at a table together, this hand comes up.

I open UTG, he coldcalls next in, the usual peanut gallery gathers (5-6 way). Flop is ace high and draw heavy, A76tt maybe, I bet he raises all the draws call, I 3-bet, all call. Turn 2, I bet all call, river 2 I bet only he calls. I flip over AK, he sympathy shows AQ.

"You know," he says as I'm Hungry Hungry Hippoing the 15-20 BB pot, "I'm beginning to think when you raise from early position, I should either 3-bet or fold."

Keep in mind this is one of the BEST players in the player pool after we've played a 3-digit number of hours together.

Sure, maybe I'd be harder to read if there were a hand worse than AQ in my range. But I was pretty easy to read there and he still didn't read me, so any deception I wanted to employ in that situation would have been totally useless.

The value of deception in MMW LHE pots converges to 0 in a heartbeat. The fact that UTG +1 couldn't really hope for anything but a chop in that spot won't stop him from making all three of those calls because he's like 22:1, 13:1, and 17:1 on his calls.

One thing DougL omits from his analysis is that by creating a limping and a raising range, and throwing strong hands into one's limping range, one simply creates two separate ranges that are weaker than optimal from early position. For example, if we use a top 10% range (A9s+, KTs+, QTs+, AJo+, KQo, 88+), and we use a 45% equity cutoff to three bet, our maximum three bet would be AJs+, AQo+, 99+ (~ 5.43% of hands, discounted thanks to EP raisingn card removal in practice). Now let's say we LRR QQ+ 1/3rd of the time. Suddenly, we've allowed our opponent's to expand their 3 bet range to potentially include AJo and 88, which expands their three bet to 6.79%. So now we're getting three bet by 25% more hands, when holding a weaker range OOP. Doesn't sound too appetizing to me.

In liberty's defense, just because our opponents SHOULD 3-bet us more doesn't mean they will.

But I agree that it's unappetizing.

(As a side note, by what metric is QTs top 10%? Is that a typo?)

The nuttiness scale imo. Suited broadways are high in nuttiness.

When playing with the clueless in low limit games, the most effective deception is not accidentally flashing your hole cards to your opponents.

Simply just slid the bar . I tend to prefer 77 over QTs myself.

I've been experimenting with early limps with occasional back-raises. So far, I've been raised by dominated hands. I even bet AQo high for value OTR in a $20/$40 game. I know position is important, but I do not fear being re-raised, or raised with inferior cards.

I'm like way tighter than this in early.

It's rare that I say loosen up from EP, but, loosen up from EP

Wait. So you're way tighter than 10% and you want to take a good chunk of what's left and limp it?

Honestly, I don't think jdr understands position very well. In early tight is right.