There have been a few threads recently where limping preflop has been a feature of the hand and I wanted to make a quick post about when limping is OK and not OK at LLSNL.

Why we raise preflop (and why it might not matter at LLSNL)

To steal the blinds: But blindstealing isn't a thing at LLSNL. Multiway pots are the rule.
To build a pot with a strong hand: Doesn't apply if you don't have a strong hand.
So that we have a more deceptive raising range: Deception and having balanced ranges tend not to matter much at LLSNL
So that we have the initiative: The initiative has far less value in multiway pots.
Because we're going to get iso-raised anyway: But in a lot of LLSNL games we don't.

Exploitative play

Exploitation is the name of the game at LLSNL, it's why the games are so profitable. When we deviate from "correct" poker strategy in these games, it's because we're playing exploitatively. Limping preflop is no different. The mistake being exploited there is that people are not aggressive enough preflop. If raising preflop was against the rules, we could play a pile more hands, especially from early position.

The corollary

There was a thread recently where someone limped 99 in position behind limpers and people were defending that as being a reasonable play. It's not, and the reason why should be obvious from thinking about the problem with limping in early position. The problem with limping hands is that people raise behind us with stuff like 99 and then we are screwed. Folding loses, calling loses. This is all very obvious when we're on that side of the hand, but switch us into the position of the raiser and suddenly it's "oh better not raise, what if overcards flop and then it's hard to play?". People can't have it both ways here. If limping is a big mistake when you have aggressive players behind you - and it is - then it must also be a big mistake not to raise aggressively when your opponents limp and you have an equity advantage over them. Otherwise you're not capitalizing on their mistake.

TLDR

- Limping is fine at LLSNL if you are limping to exploit the preflop passivity of your opponents
- Limping is not fine when there's nothing to exploit (ie your opponents are not actually passive preflop)
- Limping is not fine when you should be punishing your opponents for their inappropriate limping

Great post. The only thing I would want to expand on here is the last point of the TLDR.

How do we recognize inappropriate limping from our opponents? Is it based on their frequency of doing so? Is it based on their position?

Specific examples would go a long way for stupid people like me.

Limping from early position is virtually always a mistake. I do it sometimes with small-mid pairs if the game conditions are right. Limping in mid position is basically about frequency, yeah.

Not really that important to recognise whether limping is inappropriate in the context of raising the limpers. For instance, to use an example hand from one of the recent threads, while I think limping T8s in mid-late position after limpers is fine, it's -EV if someone behind me shows up with 99 and raises. When you have a strong hand, punish limpers by raising, whether limping was a reasonable play from them or not. You might want to open your raising range up a bit if they limp more, but probably not a lot. Opponents limping more doesn't change what you do a lot, it just means there are more opportunities where you can punish them.

- Because we'd like to reduce vpip (with a weaker range) in high rake environments

I'll just note first up that "play tight" is a slightly different argument to "don't limp".

Rake is a factor, but not a huge one. I'm investing 1bb in the limp. If there's say 10% rake, that means my return will only be 90% of what it would otherwise be. The only way that can turn the limp from +EV to -EV is if the return I expect on my 1bb limp is 1.1bb or less. I can't prove it, but personally I think my return from having T8s and position on most players in a 6 handed pot is not even close to that thin.

The pertinent thing with rake is what our advantage is when money goes in. When I play speculative hands it's with the idea of having a big advantage when big money goes in. Rake is actually more of a concern on hands where you push small edges more often, such as iso-raising people and trying to bet them off their hand.

1) Blind stealing isnt a thing?

I keep track of all kinds of weird stats at different times. Right now Im tracking profit on all non premium hands that I raise. So far at 1/2 Ive raised non premiums 107 times. 38 of those times nobody called. That's 35.5% of the time. I stole the limps and blinds for an avg of $5.97 per steal.

That's 3BB per steal. There arent too many hands that avg 3 BB profit per hand when you play them. So IMO, stealing the blinds and limps IS a thing in low stakes. It probably depends on your preflop raise size. Mine are large no matter what I have.

2) To build a pot with a strong hand.

This one is obvious. You cant build a pot with a strong hand if you dont have a strong hand, but you cant only raise strong hands or people will never call you. Which leads to #3

3) So that we have a more deceptive raising range. Deception and balanced raising ranges tend to not matter much at low stakes.

Says who? I guess it depends on whether you want to win 8BBs/hr or 18+BBs/hr.

4) So that we have the initiative. Initiative has far less value in multiway pots.

True, but if your preflop raises are larger, you will get more HU and 3 way pots and less 5-6 way pots. So initiative is still a very big deal in low stakes if you play more shorthanded pots and the way to do that is make your raises larger.

5) Because we are going to get iso-reraised anyway.

Very very very true. There's probably less than 1% of players who will 3 bet lite at 1/2 and maybe 2-3% of players who will 3 bet lite at 2/5.


I limp a fair amount so Im not arguing against it or for it. Im just saying there are lots of spots where its good and lots of spots where it bad.

Initiative is completely irrelevant. Having the preflop lead does nothing. What is relevant though is being ip/oop.

Which is incentive to raise lighter then limp - not being punished by 3bets means we can get away with lighter raises against limpers with capped ranges.

Rake is huge. Lets not delude ourselves, but particularily in any games played in australia. Thats also not exactly how it works because as we put more money into the pot we continue to pay rake so we are certainly looking to make more than .1 bb. Also to my knowledge in some places they take 1bb postflop for bbj etc so we have to account for that. We also always lose our big when somebody behind us squeezes. The same thing can also be said when we raise - if our postflop edge is as big as you think it is then its the same when we raise.

Initiative is not completely irrelevant. Assuming most things being equal, if there is a raiser and a caller and both people miss the flop, the guy with initiative will more likely than not follow thru with a Cbet and win the pot whether he is ahead or not.

I agree with raising lite. I do it constantly.

I wasnt arguing for or against limping. There are lots of good spots for both. Anyone who thinks you should never limp or never raise lite is wrong.

Yes the agressor postflop might win the pot more, but that doesn't have anything to do with initiative. You don't win a larger percentage of the pot just because you have initiative.

You're going to have to explain this because it sounds like double talk to me. Whats your definition of initiative?

Yes after rereading that probably didn't make a whole lot of sense.

What i'm saying is that having the initiative, that is being the preflop aggressor doesn't give you any more of the pot. Yes you'll probably win more pots but you wont win a higher percentage of the pot just by cbetting postflop, unless of course if they are under defending against your cbet. Like in some alternate universe where the preflop defender lead 100% of range they'd win more pots, but wouldn't win a higher percentage of the pot. Basically being the postflop agreesor wins the pot more often. i still don't know if i'm articulating this well enough.

Really good post, reminds me to limp more in ep & mp with a few hand combos i can't really raise something like KJs UTG in a 9-handed game etc. esp at a passive table as you mentioned, but depends on a lot of other factors

Initiative just means you were the last aggressor. People often check to the last aggressor.

Having initiative OOP is never of any value regardless of HU/multiway. Initiative is good IP against players who won't donk because you can decide to bet or take a card.

Initiative is mostly a meta-game concept. If you approach the game from a theoretical perspective what matters is how the pfr and cold-callers ranges are constructed and how those ranges interact on various flop textures. Initiative describes the effect of the pfr often having a range advantage and therefore having the first true strategic fork since the weaker range often checks most or all of the time.

I have mostly discarded the concept of initiative from my decision making process. It's a pretty shallow way to think about poker situations.

I'm just grunching and will be reading the other posts later, but at my 1/3 NL tables (which are very loose and quite aggro preflop and quite compentently played postflop), I actually think there are only 2 reasons to raise preflop: to create an SPR which we are comfortable stacking off to with a TP type hand, or to narrow the field to HU (or at worst 3ways). If our preflop raise isn't likely to accomplish any of those 2 reasons, then I don't see any point in raising; which means that if we aren't going to fold our hand, then the only other option is to limp (possibly to limp/reraise, possibly to evaluate and just call or fold).

Gbut,that'sjustthewayIlookatthingsG

This is a huge concept that I'm eventually coming around to especially as my tables have evolved. Before having initiative at a clueless fit/fold table even in a HU or 3way pot was profitable because you could take down so many pots with a cbet repping the AA that you supposedly had with your preflop raise; but as tables get less and less fit/foldy and see thru cbets, having initiative becomes less and less important. And in multiway pots, having initiative (especially if your hand may be face up by raising) is probably more of a detriment than anything; waiting in the weeds and evaluating the action is probably much more beneficial in these spots.

GcluelessinitiativenoobG

I think a lot of people make this mistake, but having a rake of 10% of the pot doesn't mean you're profit is cut down 10%: it is *much* more.

Here's an example: Your game is 10% raked to a maximum of $7 (which mine is). You and your lone opponent are the only ones who have put money in the pot, $35 each to create a $70 pot which you win. We won $35 off the opponent. But $7 of that was raked. Our profit (the only thing that matters) was raked 20% (!!!). Add in a $1 BBJ drop, plus a $1 tip, our profit was actually only $26 (for an actual rake on our profit of 26%!!!).

GcluelessrakenoobG

I don't think this one is nearly as obvious as you think, even with a hand as "strong" as AA.

Is AA a "strong" hand 6ways to an SPR 6 pot? I'm not so sure it is. If the pot is going to go 6ways, I would actually argue with a hand like AA you'd rather see a high SPR limped pot than one like 6.

Git'snotthatstraightforward,imo,andnotagoodreasonf orraisingG

Not a good takeaway. Fold first.

OK what's a stronger hand than AA 6 ways? Why?

How about worrying about the fact that if you never limp AA then you can never have AA 6 ways when you do limp. I'm not even talking about perceived range, I need to have AA utg when I raise at the same frequency as 66 in order to play my ranges well throughout the hand.

^This guy ****s

I've actually been meaning to do some work away from the table on this with some toy examples but I've been too lazy, but my feeling (which I could be wrong on) is that a hand like 66 here is more profitable than AA and *perhaps* suited connector stuff (although they have a real downside of RIO against higher suited connectors so I'm not convinced on those). Basically, AA is flying blind in these spots for stacks postflop while 66/etc. knows exactly where they are and can play postflop perfectly, all the while for lol small % of stack preflop.

I think I'm missing the point of your second paragraph? I'm saying I'd rather see a limped 6way pot with AA than a raised pot that creates an SPR of 4-7 6ways (which most stack sizes in my game will produce when a raise goes 6ways). And just because I'd rather see a raised multiway pot with 66 than AA doesn't necessarily mean I'd rather see a raised pot with 66 than a limped one (I don't). I'm not concerned at all about having a balanced range preflop because that is meaningless if pots are going 6ways.

Gbut,that'sjusthowIlookatthingsinmygame;IrealizeI' mintheminorityonthisG

What about raising for value, because we beat our opponents range?

This is the single factor that I believe allows me to beat my local game. I know that I can raise AJ to 5x and get called by 3-4 worse hands consistently. Do I win the majority of those pots, no. But the value created by getting money in with the best hand always comes around.

Perhaps this discussion is more game dependent. My game is more passive fit/fold type players.

We know from PokerTracker etc that AA is by far the most profitable hand regardless of game type. In fact, typically winning players would break even if they were never dealt AA.

I'm shocked that it took 20 posts for someone to bring up this obvious and vital point.

I'm not saying that limping is the devil and I certainly do it often, but it's almost always with a speculative hand, because my Vs never adjust and I sometimes get to flop a monster for cheap.

As for Vs never calling if you only raise big hands, that's not true either. Lots of Vs go "uh oh he raised." Then they look at their hand and see j8s and go "well, I gotta call with this. Hope I flop well."

Well it's because I had "raise because you have a strong hand" in the OP.