You are one of millions of ‘winning’ LLSNL players who are hardwired to identify lockdown equity as a prerequisite for stacking off. However, you are missing out on a whole world of value dodging variance in many spots where you cannot easily identify that lockdown equity, often avoiding getting there in the first place.
Many many many players are incapable of even identifying small edges, others are simply too uncomfortable to elicit those spots in the first place. This point is where a player caps himself whether because of aptitude or anxiety or both.

No doubt it's easier to get stacks in, in a raised pot. We do however lose money/value against hands that would possibly limp but will not call a raise preflop, that would pay two or three streets had they seen the flop, when we flop a set.

We've all seen the LSNL player that likes to limp most hands that are suited. This is just an example. A lot will limp with any two cards but not call a raise. There are spots where we win less by opening vs limping.

A couple examples of what I'm saying, you are in the pot with 99 and the flop is K93 vs someone that holds something like K3s. We usually can get 3 streets of value or stacks in against this villian. We can get two streets when we flop a set vs the same hand on a flop with two spades, when they don't hit their flush. Have you tried pricing out a flush draw in LSNL? Not happening.

In my opinion, the most money at this level is won by hands that go to showdown instead of winning the most pots with aggression. I win my money by entering the pot with a stronger range and getting value in spots that my opponents doesn't.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

A lot of this depends on what you think of your postflop skillz, especially relative to your opponents.

If you think you're Phil Ivey (or whoever) compared to all your opponents postflop, then you'll probably welcome these difficult spots where stacks easily come into play ASAP with mediocre hands.

If you don't think you're actually *all* that much better than your opponents postflop (which, unless you are at ****** filled tables, is probably closer to the actual truth of the matter than some of us would like to admit), or if you genuinely find these spots where stacks are being played for ASAP with mediocre hands difficult, then you probably won't welcome these spots as much.

Gdowhatputsyouinyourwheelhouse,imoG

we're so much better than our opponents postflop it's embarrassing...

- they overvalue top pair and overpair hands
- they don't understand the humongous difference between 1 card vs 2 cards for the nutz
- they think you're making a move if you raise 3 out of 4 hands
- they have no idea what boards are good for cbet bluffs
- they undervalue position
- they chase non-nutted draws like it's their job
- they think you're picking on their big blind (or small blind or button)
- they think you can soul read them
- some of them are tell-boxes
- they are variance fish
- they believe in lucky streaks, hot seats, and favorite hands
- they don't keep track of the pot size
- they don't know how to calculate pot odds
- they wouldn't know what to do with pot odds info
- they raise 6x pre and wonder why they only won 4 bux with their rockets
- they play fit/fold
- they don't know what floating means
- they don't know what a scare card is
- they often click buttons, especially on the river
- many of them never ever ever bluff
- they don't know how to range
- they put you on a hand
- they show their cards

that's off the top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing plenty

If 2500 hours of poker has taught me anything its that hot seats are a very real thing

I actually CAN soul read the ones who are tell boxes.

If that's who make up 99% of your opponents and you're the 1% otherwise, congratulations to you, imo.

ETA: After reading thru more of the list, it's unbelievable how condescending it is to the majority of opponents at a typical table I would play at. Of course I'll still find opponents and sometimes tables where some of these properties still apply, but to make it out like this is the norm is ridiculous. It sounds like your experience differs night and day from mine.

Gnotanaccuratereflectionofthecurrentpokerlandscape ,atleastinmyexperience,butyoursmaydifferG

I take issue with the word "condescending". Nowhere in that list do I say our opponents are stupid or whatever. They have lives, jobs, priorities, etc, and play poker for fun or as a serious hobby. You are grossly overestimating their poker skill level. It's not condescending to recognize that our opponent doesn't understand pot odds if our opponent doesn't understand pot odds.

I've played 1-3/1-2 in over 30 casinos in at least 8 US states. (that's not a brag, obv) Most villains in most venues fall short on many of the items on that list.

Try asking a decent Villain for a hand history and appreciate what it means when they can't recall the details very well. While we can easily recall all aspects of a hand, they will typically struggle with who was in position, how many saw the turn, what the bet sizes were, did a back door flush draw hit the turn, etc. They'll say the river was a blank, you'll ask what was the river, and say to yourself when they respond, well, that's not exactly a blank.

Or maybe I'm wrong and our opponents are poker savants.

How many hours tho

more than 2 Ava's. Which I believe is the standard unit of measure.

There's a vast difference between being a poker savant and a clueless idiot (which most of the items on that list lean to).

Gourexperiencesdiffer,imoG

Talk about embarrassing... it's 41 rooms in 11 states. Doesn't include home games, underground games or charity rooms (not a ton of those anyway, lol)

You are just wrong, I don't know how else to put it. It has nothing to do with experiences. Ask somebody in your pool to discuss a HH from a prior session and see what happens.

Or take a look at the hand you posted in chat some months ago where you claimed that you were bluffing the river. How are you able to understand or evaluate your opponents shortcomings when you think that bet was a bluff?

Brilliant people who are rec players can fail at a number of those items. Calling them clueless idiots is very wrong.

I'm not applying the "condescending" / "clueless idiots" / etc. comments to their real-life personal traits (why would that even matter?): it's simply in reference to their poker traits.

They don't know what a scare card is?

They don't keep track of pot size?

They don't what floating means?

Many of them never ever bluff?

Etc.?

Seriously?

Like I always do, I'll simply leave it up to the OP/reader. If these are the majority of opponents in your game, then great, and play appropriately. If not, then this thinking (i.e. I'm a postflop wizard compared to the majority of my opponents) isn't going to work out nearly as well as you think it is.

ETA: FWIW, I have been guilty of grouping a lot of my opponents into this single "clueless idiot" basket in the past, although I believe at the time I was mostly correct in this assessment. But things have changed, and I believe at the majority of tables I sit at now there are typically only a couple of players who fit into that category (some having more of those traits you listed above than others).

GcluelessNLnoobG

Great post! I haven't read every comment so maybe this has been asked. Some of the games I play in have 1 or 2 players who limp their entire range. It makes it very difficult for me to raise multiple limpers since players will show up with AK, AQ, QQ, and even AA, KK.

How does a game dynamic like this alter my limping vs. raising range. It seems like my middling pairs 77- TT should now be limped to avoid getting crushed by these limpers.

question the first: what is a limping range
qt2: what pct of that limping range is composed of aq+qq+

the answer is probably and you should react accordingly (that is )

DK, are you saying that AQ+/QQ+ makes up such a small percentage of a limpers range that we shouldn't adjust our raising range? (It's possible I'm misreading your post)

If 4 or 5 people limp and are all capable of having big hands in their mix, there's a pretty decent chance one of them has a big hand. I think it's pretty clear we should be toning down our raising range in these situations, no? One of the best ways to punish me (a guy who is limping in with big hands in EP) is to not raise for me; thankfully this typically isn't a problem for me at tables where lots of people in LP think "limping is stupid".

GcluelessNLnoobG

ye exactly

i'll respomd properly tomorrow when i've got less whisky in my system

but you're talking about overlimp hands and the range ofr that is exactly aq/ak exatly y% of the time

so just r/f it

Raise/folding hands that can crack people limping with big hands sucks, imo.

Goverlimp/crack,imoG

oh ye low pairs sure

but mid pairs naw

how offen you think people fold to 3bees

it's gotta be sometimes because if it was never you wouldn't complain about never getten paid with your aces

and you know you never getting fourbee light and sometimes you sad because you gotta fold your pp and you coulda setmined but really you're only gonna spike less thanna eifth o the time so whassa harm

Probably already all been said, but it irritates me that players who are serious enough to join a poker hh forum would advocate limping as often as I've been seeing it.

Limping is just not the right way to go imo for the following reasons:

1. Raised pot = bigger pot. You want to play bigger pots with strong hands in position.

2. People will start to think you're a maniac. Even decent regs will think you're full of it and pay you off regularly after you've shown down hands like 76s/K3s after raising on the button or in the cutoff vs a very weak passive button. Show up with the goods in the big pots.

3. Playing multi-way with hands like 88/99 because you want to hit a set vs a random limped hand that spiked 2 pair/draw leads to dicey situations even when you hit your set. There are boards that are very safe to bet 3 streets with a set, and there are boards that are more difficult. If you take a 6 way pot and flop a set, if ANY draw ends up getting there you can get into a lot of trouble. You also lose the direct pair value that these hands have vs 1 opponent vs 4+ opponents.

4. Hands like mid/low suited connectors have potential to make very strong hands, that's what they're known for, but in heads up spots they have decent pair value purely when they hit pairs, and can win by calling 1 bet/checking all the way to showdown. Limp in with 56s and catch a 6, you're not winning this pot.

cliffs, not a single person itt listened to bgp.

Getting into "bad spots in big pots" doesn't even matter if our opponents would have generally ended up in the same situation. We do literally profit by default because of this if we end up in rough situations less frequently, which is absolutely the cases for me.

Opponents getting in bad spots often + me not getting into bad spots very often = profit. When evaluating a hand I always ask myself what would have happened if our hands were reversed?

You are missing the point of limping. This game is incredibly dynamic and at times based on a various number of intangible factors limping in EP or OTB is correct with various hands but not all hands. Like I would never limp a value hand like AK OTB after 3 limpers. But I might limp UTG KQo or 77.

The big think about limping is understanding your opponents. At times playing passive gives you a greater edge than being aggressive. Creating a huge pot with a less accurate chance of making the right play can be worth less than a smaller pot with a higher chance of making the right play.

vs a GTO computer opponent limping is not good.