So I have been running into these spots recently and I am always confused when facing these situations.

SO in general the game is 9 handed, and all stacks range from 100-200BB and the game is either 1/2 or 1/3. My question is what is our opening range in the SB when the action gets to us and there are three to four limpers already in the pot.

Am I raising with hands like 66-99, or J10 suited +? Assuming the chance of getting 3b is low how often are we opening to just limping along? I understand the merits of opening with medium strength hands but is it ideal to do it in OPP with the likihood of getting into a multiway flop.

Obviously I am raising pre with 10s +, and AQ off +, and A10 suited +

Apologizes if this is already been discussed and thanks in advance for the feedback?

Also how does this dynamic change once it switches to six handed?

My raising range over limpers from SB is super tight. It's highly likely we're going to a flop, which means we're gonna have the worst position possible.

My raising range here is 99+, KJs+, ATs+, and AQo+

This does not change when we are six handed.

and game texture is key.
you want to raise enough to thin the herd; too little the Vs feel priced in.

In LLSNL knowing when and what to iso vs limpers is more of art than a science. The key is understanding who limped (do they l/rr, do they always limp or sometimes raise, do they limp tonnes of weak hands, do they ever limp fold?). Theres tonnes of other factors like stack size position as well but those are the main considerations usually.

A good baseline strategy in these spots is like what sixsecenoff said; play relatively tight and raise linear. You can adjust your range tighter or looser depending on the players later.

+1 to everything that’s been said except your iso range should definitely get wider 6-handed (likely to be facing more limpers)

Also, reasonably assess your postflop ability OOP and take that into consideration as well. Especially when deeper.

Key factor for me is skillfullness / difficulty of limpers. No one is making that much of a mistake this deep by making a relatively loose preflop call in position. Against ABC face up players, who cares. Against non-ABC players that aren't face up, it's probably the only factor that matters.

GimoG

Lmao

But in all seriousness, all things that have been said already are true. Stack depth matters. Raise linearly. Don’t bloat pots with hands that you can’t see many paths to showdown with as you’ll be OOP.

If you are raising, remember that you’re OOP. So definitely stick a big raise in. I’d even consider something like $35+ over 3 limpers in the sb if I elect to raise (at 1/3 stake on $500 starting stack), because it serves a ton of good things for you (gets value, better defines the range of hands you’re against so you don’t have to be worried about many random 5x hands on like 955 for example, cuts their implied odds and makes their limps less profitable, etc).

And as others have said, identify the players too. If someone like GG has limped in, raise less. If you’re against a bunch of short stacks, raising a hand like 77 becomes a lot better because you can drive hands out now and get to showdown more often (and win hands that you otherwise wouldn’t have if you limped) while risking less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Play it like the BTN. People will give you too much credit and their ranges are weak anyway.

I ended up having a lot to say on this, and it could probably make a post on its own, but I'll leave it here for now. I've broken it down by sections.

Sizing
One of the biggest leaks that I notice many players have when facing limps in the SB is not so much in hand selection but in sizing. We should actually be going quite large, around 10-13BB.

There are a two main reasons for this:
-We will be OOP post-flop, and as such want to minimise the SPR to reduce our positional disadvantage.
-If we raise smaller, rather than exploiting our opponents, they can actual end up exploiting us by limping. This is because hands which they should open, but will be unprofitable continues against a standard 3B size, are saving money by instead being able to realise their equity for a smaller sizing which is often more profitable for their holding than raising and facing a 3B.

A common objection I hear to using this sizing is that we don't want to scare off players when we have a strong value hand pre. When implementing this strategy live, I have noticed that whilst players will tend to fold to it the first few times you use this sizing, subsequent times they will start to call more often, and with a way wider range than they should. Of course, this does also lead to some players starting to develop a limp-raising strategy with some of their premium holdings, which we can deal with by constructing our range appropriately, as I will detail below.

Our Range
Regarding our actual SB raising range, we first need to understand what the theoretically best approach to exploiting a general limping strategy is. From this point we can adjust it to reads of our specific opponents.

From a theoretical perspective, we can't raise too wide from the SB facing limps, as otherwise our opponents could make more profit by limping hands such as AA than they would by simply open-raising them. In other words, we need to account for limp-raising in our strategy, and make sure that our opponents can't exploit a wide SB iso range by limping. The best strategy here (which is generally confirmed by simulations) is to treat each limp as a min-open, and play accordingly. As such, our raising range from the SB facing limps should be pretty much the same as if we faced an open from the first limper, and calls from subsequent limpers.

Another key factor when raising over limps from any position except the BB is that players behind us can either wake up with a hand, or can realise we're raising limps wider than we should and exploit us. As such if our range becomes wider than theoretically sound, we will allow any observant/competent player behind us to print money.

The fact that our range is going to be essentially an SB 3B range also makes sense given that our sizing will be pretty much the same as an SB 3B sizing. This concept also applies when facing limps from any position, in that we should treat each limp as a min-open and continue against it with a standard 3B range using a standard 3B sizing. This also means that hands which we could call against an open in this position (e.g. mid-small pairs) are over-limps. This over-limping strategy is also validated by simulations.

Exploitative Adjustments
When we get into exploiting certain player types who limp, there are a few types of limpers which require very different exploits. It's also worth noting that we can only use an exploitative strategy here if we're certain that none of the players behind us will take advantage of us. Otherwise any money we may make off the limpers will be going straight into the BB's pocket over time.

The Trapper: This person's limping range contains pretty much all of their strong hands, and is liable to limp-raise their premiums. Against this player type, using the standard 3B range is ideal, since your 3B range should already be able to handle a 4B on occasion. We can slightly tighten or loosen our 3B range depending on how many other hands this player limps alongside their premiums, and whether there are some hand categories which they do open (suited broadways, AK and JJ are common ones).

The Bum Hunter This person will basically only limp implied odds hands, specifically small-mid pairs, AXs and sometimes suited connectors. They might be a slightly winning player, since they are basically fit/fold post-flop depending on whether they make a nutted or near nutted hand with these holdings. There are two approaches to exploiting this player, the first is to use the theoretically sound strategy of opening large which was detailed earlier. The other one, which we can only use if they are the first and only limper, is to raise to a slightly smaller size which they will call. As a result of their extremely defined and capped range pre-flop, we will be able to print money against them post-flop, especially on boards which do not connect with this narrow range.

The Penny Pincher This player's limping range consists of mid-strength hands that should typically be raises, as well as some hands that are typically folds. They are limping these hands because they don't feel they're strong enough to raise, but don't want to fold them either. Since this player's range will connect with a wider variety of board types, we will need to maintain our large sizing pre-flop, but can slightly widen our range due the capped nature of their limping range. This adjustment only works if none of the limpers have a propensity to trap of course.

The Gambler This player's limping range is basically ATC, but rarely folds to a raise, and has a propensity to randomly take a stand. As such, against this player we adjust our range to remove any 3B bluffs we may have previously had in our range, and can slightly widen our value range due to the reduced fold equity we have. By replacing our bluffs with thinner value hands here, this will also reduce the ability for any players behind to exploit our adjusted range.

Specifics
You may have noticed that I haven't actually provided any specific ranges here. One reason for this is because the range will change significantly depending on how many limpers we're facing. Also because most of the concepts here for facing limps are applicable when facing limps from any position, and obviously we will have a different 3B range from each position. If you want specific ranges, including the ones from the simulations I referred to, I use the ranges from zenithpoker.com. There are charts on the site for most positions which are freely available, however the exact simulation results are currently only available to Patreon supporters (but will be made free in the future afaik).

Solid post. I agree with almost all of it, though I think the sizing is rather extreme, even for 1/2 and definitely for any larger game. I agree that it should be larger than a standard open, but unless you're raising a big chain of limpers, I don't think it has to be 10-13BBs. My rule of thumb for opening size from the blinds is whatever the tables standard open, +1BB per limper, +2BBs. I really like the discussion of the limper typology.

That said, if you are associated with Zenith Poker (other than as a user), please be aware of 2+2's self-promotion policy. I don't see this post as subtle advertising, but other mods might and something more focused on the site could certainly run afoul of that policy. If you're just a user of the site without an interest in it, please disregard.

If we're raising over limpers, if we use a size smaller than our 3B sizing (which will generally be between 10-13BB OOP), then our opponents are saving money by limping weaker hands which are marginal continues against a standard 3B, but can continue easily against a smaller size (close to a min 3B). In essence, limpers can accidentally be exploiting us if we use a smaller size.

Regarding Zenith, just a user here, no other affiliation.

Huh. My OOP 3-bets are generally larger than 13BBs. The average open here is 4.5BBs. If I 3-bet one of those, I'm going 3x as a minimum, which takes us to to 13.5BBs without adding in my OOP bump.

Compare that to a SB open over two limpers, where I'd go about 8.5 BBs

I should have clarified in my original post that by 'standard' 3B sizing, I meant the 3B sizing that would be used when facing a theoretically standard open sizing (typically between 2-2.5x).

However even when facing larger pre-flop raise sizes OOP (3-5x), the simulations tend not to 3B as a multiple of the open size, but rather 3B to the same size (about 10-13BB). This is because with our 3B range, under theoretically ideal conditions we're primarily trying to setup a post-flop SPR that is favourable for our entire range against our opponent's, rather than set pot-odds preflop for specific holdings. This is because after a certain SPR (around 3-3.5), we can happily stack-off a decent pair, and our opponent will be forced to continue with a lot of weaker hands if they don't want to donate us the pot whenever they don't have a set.

Of course when playing live, we aren't under these theoretically ideal conditions, and so we can 3B when facing an open to an even larger size with a value heavy range, because they will often call us with worse. We'll also want to 3B larger when deeper than 100BB, since we want to minimise the SPR when OOP.

This doesn't make too much sense. There are a lot of factors you haven't talked about at all. Limping might make it easier to realize equity (I hate this phrase), but it also opts out of any chance to win the pot preflop or at least deny equity to weaker holdings in the BB. It's much more favorable to BB to be able to check with Q2s or whatever than to have to call a small raise, even if it's a slightly profitable defend. Also, you are more likely to face a raise behind when you open limp than you are when you open raise, and I disagree with your later argument that this can be exploited by starting to slowplay strong hands. When strong hands attempt to limp/rr, they may get more value from hands that will raise but wouldn't have 3-bet, but they miss value from hands that will neither raise nor 3-bet. Raising smaller also provides less incentive to slow-play.

There are not even too many hands that can limp/call a small sizing, but not raise/call against the same sizing relative to pot against the same range that would have 3-bet. The only difference in these two scenarios is that SPR will be higher in the l/c scenario, which tends to benefit the IP player. Most of the hands that can would benefit more from the EV you get from steals. I would argue that just folding is often better than limping with the bottom parts of the ranges recommended to open.

Using nearly the same range and sizing doesn't make much sense on the surface because we are getting much worse odds on our steals by using the same sizing in a smaller pot. Maybe the fact that limpers ranges are wider and more capped balances this out but I wouldn't say it makes intuitive sense, at least not to me. It's going to be a lot more complicated than same sizing = same range.

HU post-flop solvers have significant limitations since their output relies heavily on the parameters set by the human. It's easy for someone who doesn't know what they're doing to produce garbage results. Add orders upon orders of magnitude more complexity for multi-way preflop solutions, without knowing the parameters used for the solves, and I'm extremely skeptical of any results coming out.

I think there are good arguments for raising larger than is commonly practiced, but I don't this this is a good one.