I believe over-limping is profitable with speculative hands in late position in LLSNL. I would not consider 99 a speculative hand.1/2 5 limpers and we have 99 on the button. Limp? He'll no make it 25$.

Instead of trying to use some theoretical approach to poker, why dont you actually keep track on your phone of hands where you raise things like pocket pairs below TT after 4-5 limpers and after 1000 hours, let us know how those hands do. I already know the answer, but it might stop this dumb argument. Theory and reality are 2 different things.

Because that isn't going to help either, maybe if we could get 50k hours but after 1000? Not conclusive enough.

Without using theory we all may as well be stuck in 2009 (which LLSNL is)

why do you know the answer? Did you find it unprofitable and still kept doing it for 1000 hours?

I haven´t seen one person change his opinion. People seem more interested in proving their own theories than in actually listening to others and find some leaks. You should welcome it if someone discovers a flaw in your game. Instead, people get mad.

Which makes discussing hands and strategies pretty pointless.

I have enjoyed reading the opinions about limping vs raising preflop. There have been good points on both sides. In my opinion, the best approach, whether to limp or raise, is based on the table/place that you're playing and the tendency of the players in the game. I've seen tables where it's better to open your whole range and I've seen tables it's more profitable to limp your whole range. A good portion, the majority, of this thread you will never be able to be convinced that the latter could possibly ever be true.

No amount of "initiative" can make up for the times/table that is going to go multiway for basically any amount where almost every hand goes to showdown. You can talk all you want to about initative and about range advantage but that don't mean much when you have to showdown the best hand after all the cards are out. This type game is harder to find today vs 10+ years ago but they still happen.

The typical table that is loose preflop where most players are fit/fold postflop then it's probably better to never over limp.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Well said

Yes, 99 is going to under-realize it's equity in this case (multi-way). And Broadway cards are going to benifit from that. It is nature of the game.

I would be raising 99 100% of time in games I play. But for reasons, not mentioned in thread.

Over limping 99 in already multi-way pot, likely gives mass population higher EV than raising.

You don't have any proof (besides your theory). That raising is better than l limping. Neither does anyone else.

I am biggest winner by large margin in 2 games I play the most. In the 1 game I limp and play almost ATC, in the other I never limp, and use tight range OOP.

Table dynamics, and opponent skill levels should dictate your strategy. Not some book, or poker theory, or Upswing poker mod.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Great post!!!! I wouldn't have posted my thoughts had I seen this.

Being a nut job lag, I do disagree with "Initiative" part. Because even in no foldem holdem (which every Monday I still currently play a game that qualifies), initiative (+pressure), still drives alot of bad players, to making huge mistakes.

Example, I got tight/passive guy to call me AIPF for 195 BB pre this week. Holding KQ

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

This is exactly why I laugh when someone says "never limp", "never overlimp" or "never lead into the raiser". As soon as you say "never", you are making a mistake.

Are you always making a mistake though?

Nope. Always raising isnt always a mistake. Always limping isnt always a mistake. If you can correctly figure out when its not a mistake to limp and not a mistake to raise....then youre on to something.

Well sure there are some hands we should pretty much always be raising on the button after limpers. I don't agree that 99 is necessarily that hand though as it will derive much of it's value postflop. Whether I raise or overlimp would be based on a variety of factors including stack depths and the limping ranges of my opponents. The problem in live poker is that some players are limping super strong and 99 isn't as far ahead of these particular limping ranges as you might think and it's a hand we'd like to see a flop with.

The reasons to limp is not great advice, and its based on the fundamental error that the name of the game at lowstakes is multiway pots. Its this simple: If all your raises are going multiway, raise more preflop.

You are probably raising to $10 or $8 at 1/2 and thinking "wow it goes 7 ways a lot! Might as well limp." Yeah, youre learning the wrong lesson.

The way to abuse people who are calling too light is to raise by more to compound their mistake, and to get it HU so that you can also maximize your skill advantage. Id say my typical raise at 1/3 is $20+. Preflop bet sizing to get it HU based on table dynamic, and reads is an art not a science, but thats what you should be doing here, not limping.

And limping 22 IP behind several limpers is also terrible. Im popping it to $30 and betting flop with a wide range in a spot like this, and if the board is dynamic im likely barreling turn as well. The few times I havent taken it down and either face a raise or am on the river, and my cards actually matter, hands like 22 play great since they hit the monsters im repping more often than other hands.

For me personally, my limping range tends to be either nonexistant or extremely wide (basically at tables with extremely drunk people who are ready to GII once they hit any piece of the flop)

This comes around once in a while. People trying to reinvent the wheel on why they limp. Fact is that the primary reason for limping is simple undisciplined poker. Even if there are times to limp where its the most EV+ play, i can pretty much guarantee you that 99% of people on this forum would see their winrate go up if they removed limping from their game entirely because the fact that limping might not be stupid in narrow circumstances is used as an excuse by regfish to play weak passive poker, and to play too wide of a range and limp in for cheap with your favorite hand.

Doug Polk Doug Polk Doug Polk. Works like Beetlejuice.

Highly doubt you'll play enough hands prior to your change using method A vs after your change using method B. Also doubt you'll be playing in the same game (same opponents who play exactly the same, exact same table conditions, etc.) over that sample size (even if you could put in that sample size). And on top of that you have variance where even a hand or two difference in a small sample could make a huge difference.

Pretty sure I've told this story before, but at the 2000 hour mark I thought "man, I wish I had kept track of whether open limping 55 to setmine UTG was profitable". But then I did the math backwards and realized I probably would have only seen about 55 UTG about 35 times or so, and that I would have flopped a set (pretty much the only hand I'm continuing with) about 4 times. So my whole conclusion of whether playing 55 UTG over 2000 hours would have been based on the results of just 4 hands. Lol. Did I run well variance-wise in those 4 hands and stack a donk? Or did the donks not make hands where they could get stacked in those hands? Or did I run I lose one of those hands? And would have any of that even mattered since 2000 hours is about 4 years for me, and the game changed drastically over that time?

I think it's one of the main problems with poker in that it's unlikely we'll be able to base our methods on empirical evidence and will instead have to just take informed guesses as to what method is likely more EV. My guess is that almost everyone in this thread is probably a winning player, and yet we all have widely different opinions on what the best EV line is, and even what a good situation is versus a bad one.

Galso,willnowbegettingBGPtoargueformefromnowon,tha nksforstoppingby,imoG

I can use this same logic to debunk the theory that over limping 99 is lower EV than raising 99 after limpers. But lots of people are dead set that over limping is just horrible poker.

I'm not sure what you mean?

Are you saying you have empirical evidence to prove what the highest EV route is? I'm saying you'll never have enough sample size pitting method A vs method B under the same conditions to have a satisfactory answer.

So all we can do is guesstimate at what will probably work best in the game conditions we play in. I'm not going to take a hard line on either method because I think it would be pretty hard to prove (even theory-wise) that one method is far more EV over another, but others obviously disagree and take a harder line.

GcluelessNLnoobG

No, Im saying all the people who say you should never open limp, or never over limp or never lead into the raiser or never do whatever...are wrong. And according to your theory, which I somewhat agree with, they will never be able to prove they are right. You should do what works for you in your games. That can be different things at different times and for a variety of different reasons.

This is the bit that I don't think you get. This isn't my definition of outplayed. This is what getting outplayed means, that your hand should be worth x and you are instead settling for some fraction of x.

If 99 has 67% equity heads up preflop, then we should be taking home more than 67% of the preflop pot at the end of the day (more because being in position represents an additional structural advantage). You don't have to do anything complicated postflop to realize your preflop advantage. Simply checking it down would work fine. If you're not winning at least 67% of the preflop pot on average, it's because you are folding too often. The only way you can possibly not realize your preflop equity is to not show your hand down.

There is nothing that a single opponent out of position can do to ruin our preflop equity. If an overcard comes and they bet, the best they can do is bet at a frequency that makes us indifferent between calling and folding. It's not possible for them to bet at a frequency where we lose our equity share.

You have this idea in your head that how poker goes is:

1. Preflop happens, we have 67% equity on the money that goes in.
2. [Unspecified super sick postflop betting pattern from our opponent]
3. We didn't realize that 67% we had.

I'm telling you that if that does happen, step 2 involves you screwing up.

This is factually inaccurate.

The majority of this has been addressed in my previous posts

It's a hallmark of mediocre players who aren't improving to see something they don't understand and just say "wow he must be wrong." You should lose that attitude.

This is your definition. It is not the agreed upon definition of every poker player. If it is I'd love to see you cite a source where getting outplayed means collecting less postflop than your equity for if the hand were played out after money goes in preflop.

You have broken the game down to hand by hand whereas I look at it as playing the hand over thousands of times and seeing what is most profitable. You've then broken the game down even further to street by street which is even more bizarre.

I also already addressed this:


Nowhere do I say that I'm not winning money, I'm just not looking at it as some bizarre game where preflop equity is the most important factor. I am just fine with losing more pots (for far less) when I don't hit a set. You seem obsessed with the metric that you made (% of preflop pot) whereas I'm just focusing on maximizing overall ev. This is how most winning players think. Try to cash in your preflop equity, I'll keep focusing on the money I get from winning at showdown and when everyone folds.











Oh is that all it takes? I just need for 5 players to all agree to check it down when I'm weak?


This is a bit of an aside but let's take a quick look at how your original assertion has evolved.

Always raise 9s over 5 limpers!

What if someone 3 bets?

Pretend they can't!

What if they limp a pretty strong range?

Pretend they don't!

What if our hand doesn't realize all of its equity postflop?

Just check it down with everyone!

Your original assertion that 9s is always a raise over many limpers has changed to "9s is always a raise over many limpers if they have ridiculously bad ranges, never 3 bet, can never have better hands, and never bet postflop." At this point I think we can safely just say that you agree with "sometimes it's a raise sometimes it isn't.















Already addressed:

No one is arguing that 9s is a great hand to raise heads up. But your point is still wrong, but what you just said still doesn't matter because it doesn't prove that raising is the optimal way to play.
















This is wrong, and it doesn't matter and is still going off your concept of "win your % of your preflop equity."

You have this idea in your head that you will play your hand perfectly postflop in a (5 or more) way pot so you can meet your preflop equity quota (which you made up. Step 2 involves my screwing up by your definition, not mine because you're still using your own metric and not the one agreed upon by most winning poker players.

I'm keeping step 2 incredibly simple: keep pots small when I don't hit a set, stack donks when I do.

You're setting yourself up so that you have to win a lot of pots unimproved. You're the one who is having to make some super sick betting pattern to show down a pair of 9s when it's best although still weak.

Maybe give an example?

Don't be a condescending prick. That applies just as well to you and I have been around longer.

Where is this EV supposed to be coming from? We both stack donks with sets postflop, and I can do so a lot more easily than you because the pot is bigger. Where's your advantage over my line?

I guess to keep it simple: Do you believe that 99 in position against 5 other players with typical LLSNL limping ranges is a +EV spot postflop? Forget about preflop and just go directly to a random flop. Do you expect to win overall playing out the rest of the hand?

In a raised pot or limped pot?