Interested on discussing what we think is the best approach and why with suited and unsuited broadways in the following situations:

(ignoring AKs,AKo)

1) We are BTN with a single limper

1a) blinds are stations

1b) blinds are tight

2) We are BTN with multiple limpers

3) We are MP with single limper

3a) players behind are sticky

3b) players behind are tight

4) We are MP with multiple limpers

5) how might our strat change if we were 100bbs deep vs +250bbs deep?


<3 yew guize

If I'm in MP and players behind are sticky then I will fold unsuited broadway except for KQo. If the table is passive and deep stacked I may limp some suited broadway if I thought I could outplay my opponents post flop. With short stacks then I will muck them.

If I'm in late position I'm generally raising all broadway suited or unsuited to iso the fit or fold passive limpers. If a player in the blinds is capable of 3betting light or likes to squeeze then I'm more likely to just limp in, but will raise if my image has been snug.

1) Raise
1a) Raise bigger
1b) Raise normal

2) Raise bigger

3) Raise (mostly fold unsuited)
3a) Raise bigger
3b) Raise normal (Add back unsuited)

4) Raise bigger (only suited, fold rest)

5) Raise bigger with bigger stacks

Hand value runs from JTo (lowest) to KQss (highest). This is quite a difference.

On BTN facing a single limper and stations in the blinds, I probably raise all these hands.

Multiple limpers on BTN, I call whatever I'm not raising, what I raise is going to depend on table but probably something like KQo/KJo and KQss/KJss/QJss/JTss.

MP with single limper I will iso probably about the same as the range for BTN iso vs. multiple limpers above, fold the unsuited broadways and call like KTss/QTss if I think the table will probably limp behind.

MP multiple, strengthen my iso to KQ, KJss.

Deep, all the suited broadways increase in value when we have position.

DISCLAIMER: Live poker is always situational, so none of these are always 100%. The game is not robotic and there are external influences that can change any decision but this is in general

1) We are BTN with a single limper

1a) blinds are stations: Raise

1b) blinds are tight: Raise

2) We are BTN with multiple limpers: Depends on where they limped, but if they are habitual limp/re raisers with big hands that crush us, I would overlimp.

3) We are MP with single limper: Raise if people behind you are tight and or preflop tells suggest they are ready to fold and you can steal the button essentially with a pretty good %.

3a) players behind are sticky: Fold if this broadway is worse than ATss and KQo+

3b) players behind are tight: Raise to iso in good position.

4) We are MP with multiple limpers: Raise limp and fold Split, depends which broadways
5) how might our strat change if we were 100bbs deep vs +250bbs deep? Depends.

Situation 1 is almost always a raise. The limps are just to mix up the play and I'm raising a lot wider then just broadways.

After that it's too broad of a question. Exact stack sizes and raises sizes matter, as do how tight/loose and passive/aggressive villains are. Most of these hands are raise sometimes, call sometimes and fold sometimes.

The deeper effective stacks the more hands you want to play and the more often you want to raise but as your range gets wider you would like to raise less to keep implied odds bigger. You have to balance that against limiting your opponents calling ranges.

For the hands where you are in MP the potential action after changes things radically. If the table has a lot of raising then you have to cut down your limping range so it's mostly hands that can call a raise. If the table is passive then you can limp more often and that lets limp a wider range.

Okay, I guess the real question im asking is this:

why would we choose to sometimes overlimp and hand vs isolating a hand?

We would overlimp mostly against Vs we feel are capable of paying us off in a non cooler situation.

I only tend to limp hands where I feel comfortable putting in a small portion of my stack knowing that there is potential to make a longshot hand with a large payoff if I get there. (Or I'll limp hands hoping I can reraise a raise behind me.) I don't really draw as much distinction between open-limping and overlimping the way many people do.

I tend to isolate in two scenarios--either I think a large portion of my profit from a hand comes from narrowing the field and then bluffing the flop (or a later street); or, there's a fish in the hand and I want to force everyone else out of the pot so I'm the only one with a chance of getting his money.

As you said in your OP, this doesn't include hands like AK where I'm raising for straight-up equity edge reasons.

If I don't have a good enough reason to limp a hand, and I don't have a good enough reason to raise, then it's a fold. (Sounds obvious but sometimes it's not.)

To me the decision is when in MP. If players left to act won't cooperate when I tell them to go away (either pre or postflop), then I'm limping most of the sooted (raising KQs) and trashing most of the rest. If they're likely to raise it up pre, I'm much more likely to not get involved, and perhaps look to table change as well.

This is gold. Note the order that you think about it. Most players think, "I don't want to fold this hand, but I don't want raise with it, so I'll limp." That's why in LLSNL you see so many limpers pf. Your default position pf should be folding if you don't know what you want to do with the hand postflop, not limp. Much of the time if your plan is to hit the flop hard or fold, you should be folding pf.

The key for me in all of these situations is this: will an isolation raise actually isolate anyone (i.e. narrow the field to HU in position between me and the limper, or me and a blind, or simply take down the money now)?

I'm not sure how all your games play, but isolating at my typically loose table is a really hard thing to do. Often times it just takes one loose call behind us / out-of-the-blinds, and bam, 5way to the flop with not a great hand.

Even really increasing our raise size to be more successful at isolating ain't necessarily a good idea. We'll win the blinds/limps lots, but when we get called, we're typically up against a hand that is crushing us and ain't going nowhere to a cbet; sorta like open shoving any hand we're playing (we'll win a zillion pots, but we'll lose money overall if we're doing this too loosely).

Gisolatingishard,imoG

Not sure I agree with this; even Vernon said he's cool with putting in a very small portion of his stack with a limp if he thinks hitting a longshot will pay off.

In LP, I'm overlimping monsters such as 74o at most tables if I think there is a player or two in the hand that is horrible.

Although, I will admit that that doing M's COM a few+ months ago when I recorded 30bb+ pots (pots where I won/lost 30bb+), of the 35 hands I recorded almost all of them where top tier hands (broadways+) or pocket pairs. Only T7s and T8s snuck in there. But obviously lol sample size, and I'm guessing I probably won some ok pots (say 20bb+) with junky hands that didn't quite crack the 30bb+ barrier. I still believe (foolishly?) that sneaking into a pot with a nutmaking hand in LP after limpers for cheap hoping to smash the flop is going to be profitable at most tables, so long as we don't completely suck postflop.

GcluelessNLnoobG

If the size of the pot is 30bb or less, that means your payoff on hitting a big hand was probably 20bb or less (since you put in some of that money). 20:1 is not enough of a payoff to be limping junky hands. I'd venture a guess that your data are sending you a stronger message than you think.

It's possible, although I still think lol sample size; it only takes a single 100bb stack job with a junky hand once-in-a-blue-moon to probably make them profitable, especially when combined with the few ~20bb pots they rake in.

Vern: 4 limpers (including a couple of real horrible players) to you on the Button with passive bad blinds. You taking a flyer with 74o? It also has the benefit of getting us into hands (i.e. we're seen as participating in the game instead of ~nutmining), plus might loosen our image if we showdown one of these monsters. I'm guessing if it is a mistake, it's a very minor one at worse, no?

ETA: And to clarify, the hands I was recording was when I won or lost 30bb (actually, closer to 33bb as I was simply recording wins/losses of $100 or more); i.e. I've already subtracted the amount of money I put into the pot (this is pure profit/loss).

GcluelessNLnoobG

+1 exactly agree across the board. Also 2-5 may be sort of style dependent, but 1a/b is fundamental poker.