Of course it's rare to have a pot checked down and win it. To break even on a preflop raise if it's 6 ways, I need to win 1 in 6 times. I'm going to flop a set 1 in 8.5 times, that accounts for a lot of the winning. The difference between 1/6 and 1/8.5 is less than 5%. So I'm aiming to win unimproved somewhere around 5-10% of hands, probably. 99 flops an overpair ~17% of the time and has about 16% equity on flops like Q72r. So I don't think winning 5-10% unimproved is hard at all, especially since (in my game anyway) people check to the raiser like 90% of the time and usually have a crushing hand if they lead.

You base your entire game around not making mistakes in big pots, but you're only filling out one side of the ledger. Opponent mistakes are also exacerbated in large pots. When opponents check call the flop without odds to do so, which they do constantly, those mistakes are a lot worse in raised pots.

Fair enough. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't really know enough about it. I'll retract the general claim but I still don't think that 99 in position represents a hand that is hard to realize equity with. It's the exact opposite of a hand with RIO problems and it's frequently obvious when it's beaten. I think AA is harder to play postflop 6 ways, frankly.

Have bolded the parts of this I can unconditionally agree with

Im not going down this rabbit hole, but ill just say, 99 should be raised not limped, just like 66 and 22 and 57s, because limping is stupid, and 99 isnt super hard to play in either limped or raised pots, but itll make more money.

I also think its concerning you value preflop equity so highly though, because there is a reason hands like 54s play better than k9o in 100+ BB poker which you should know after tens of thousands of posts, so i hope your PF range isnt based on PF equity because thats a massive leak.

I don't value preflop equity highly. I value being in raised pots with good hands. The preflop equity thing was because one of the things people say in support of limping is "I lose less when I don't flop a set". I was pointing out that that makes no sense when you have an equity advantage preflop. I didn't expect that to devolve into a discussion of whether or not the whole concept of equity on a street is witchcraft

Quite well summarized, thank you.

Can we go so far as to say the “skill” in these situations will revolve around limping a few mixed combo’s that would be folded or reraised in any more straight forward scenario among more balanced players?

Must be some lower suited connectors and the pocket pairs that involve these, imo.

Not exactly a convincing argument.

GimoG

I'm not sure how this thread got so polarizing. In a ridiculously loose/stationy game where being a "supreme donkey crusher" is a gold mine, it should be obvious that limping lots of speculative hands is correct. Similarly, in a game full of solid online grinders, it should be obvious that limping lots of speculative hands is incorrect. Most of our tables nowadays are somewhere in the middle. It's much more important to understand why you're raising/limping/folding these hands & to be able to adjust properly than to try to classify limping as good or bad.

Solid.

I just have to add that 99 cannot be treated as a purely speculative limping hand (even against high frequency calling stations) because there are just too many beneficial preflop (and subsequent postflop*) outcomes that arise from raising it which are lost when limping. Practically, they do not “always call” facing a raise. As Tomark added, size up - Perhaps you win the blinds or wind up HU/3 ways to a flop which is actually what BGP prefers for 99.

*Even if they all call (and you didn’t get HU) you have likely secured position and initiative post bc of your raise pre. For those upthread that patted themselves on the back wrt to initiative having little impact, you ought to consider how much value you receive from being able to setmine turns for your preflop investment by way of having been the PF aggressor/frequently checked to as a result. That isn’t some negligible factor and turning sets and straights and straight draws is a pretty big value component to the hand itself.

Usually the skill involved in these scenarios is valuebetting the hell out of donks.


Well said


Given the scenario we were working with, a 5 bb raise, I would expect everyone to call more often than not. If you wanted to get this down to HU, 3 way or even win the blinds (indeed very good scenarios as now the pair value of 9s when we don't hit a set goes waaaaay up) then we would need to make our raise much larger. This would open up some other very bad consequences for this exact holding though.

Like what? Getting 3bet out of the blinds which you can very confidently muck the worst of it to?

The only way we get punished is if the blinds vpip by 3betting a good linear range - yeah, isn't going to happen

Yes, that would be a bad outcome.

So is opening Kk and getting 3bet by Aa

The world of limpers can't 3bet us?

After a lot of limpers in my loose game, it's easily going to require a 10x++ raise to have a chance to narrow the field in my game (I've often opened to 10x+ and gotten more action than I've wanted). If blinds wake up with a hand or limpers are limping a big one to reraise (which is often the case), it's pretty much a disaster having to raise/fold for 10x+ even if it's only "some" of the time.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Very few hands prefer to face a 3b, but it's a bridge too far to lean on this argument as a justification not to 2b 99. BGP overstepped there...especially in the context of this thread, where it's hypocritical to allow for any frequency of being 3b by limpers when we won't allow for any frequency of limpers folding.

I don't see how saying the limpers aren't folding and can possibly 3bet is hypocritical. It's kinda consistent if we're assuming limpers can be limping in with strong hands.

GcluelesslimpingnoobG

Because if 99 can get folds then it's doing remarkably better as a 2b than a limp.

Beating a dead horse I suppose, but how can I support an argument that informs me that I cannot find a profitable raise sizing, for a top 3% hand, as a direct result of other players playing their ranges as a limp?

Limp, limp, limp, I cannot profitably raise x because limpers too often call wide.
Limp, limp, limp, I cannot profitably raise y because limpers too often 3b linear.

So then open limping/overlimping from any position with all hands is optimal because any preflop aggressor cannot profitably 2b without TT+ AKs?

Course it all depends on how many limpers there are, and how many will fold to the raise, etc.; I'm guessing there is probably some sweet spot (HU?) which is likely the best result? But, again, given that after a world of limpers we're almost getting immediate setmining odds, it's not abundantly obvious to me that getting some folds is remarkably better than almost setmining here. Is getting everyone to fold a good result? If everyone is solid postflop, probably. If anyone in the mix is horrible, it may be a disaster.

GIcan'tbetheonlyonewhothinksthisisn'tremarkablyobv ious?G

I'll let BGP address the rest of your question since it was directed at him.

But I think the last statement is a really interesting one (apart from the fact we're not really addressing whether it is profitable or not, we're addressing whether it is the most profitable line). I know HOC would answer yes in this case (adding AK, possibly throwing in AQs, and adjusting slightly up/down given limpers). And for years in the games I was playing in I thought this was far too tight. But I've now come around to the thought that in current games this might be more correct in a lotta spots (such as after many limpers) than I originally thought.

Not saying that it's definitely right or definitely wrong. Just saying that there is a possibility that it's fine. I mean, outright dismissing it due to "lol, nit" isn't really a good argument, right?

GcluelessNLnoobG

I think it would help to have everyone offering advice to state their winrate for the year (so we know how heavily to weigh their advice vs. the advice of others).

GG let's start with you - whats your winrate using a heavy limping style in todays game (2017 winrate) ?

It's just a gross misclassification to say 99 is a pure setmining hand before preflop action is complete. 22 otoh is a pure setmining hand (that does not necessarily even need to be included in ranges at all to make them more profitable). It's flop equity distribution is extremely polarized, set or nothing, and as such there is no reason to play it as a raise given it makes more money with 3,4,5,6 perhaps 8 ranges (better chance to make weaker made hands) seeing the flop for as cheaply as possible. (Except in Tomark's case where he refuses to have any limping ranges in which case 22 is viable as a raise/fold pre). 22 also has severe RIO problems with it's straight equity as it only does so on A345/3456 boards, it's flush equity is obviously useless, and its frequency of being oversetted is naturally the highest of all other pps.

99, however, is going to flop overpairs, second pair, less dominated SDs, sets, along with middling flush equity on many flops. It has a smooth (I think this is the term) flop equity distribution that allows for far more playability on flops and late street play as well. As a result, it would like the pot size, heading to the flop, to be a certain size (hard to know exactly how much), but it isn't 6 ways for 6bb. A simple proof is that 22 would love to see a 6 way pot for 6bb which means it's higher raw equity counterpart does not.

I post my winrate giraffe every single year (as well as my overall) in the Winrates thread (where it belongs), and I'll do the same in about a month. Like any shortterm results has any bearing whatsoever on the discussion.

Gturnsoutthepersonwhoranbestthisyearisthecorrecton e?G

Regarding 99 being a "setmining" hand, 99 has 14% equity 6 ways against typical limping ranges even if you remove the other two 9s from the deck. Average equity there is 16.7%, so 99 is still almost as good as everyone else's hand even if you ban it from hitting a set.

Who cares? Preflop equity is pretty useless in a spot like this where you're 6 ways and have a lot more money behind, and you have multiple more decisions to make if everyone isnt all in preflop.