I will often see donk limp in early or mid position with JJ-AA. And even just call if there is a raise. This is typicall for old nits or even scared money players who just "hate" aces. They will sometimes get paid off when the flop comes right because how can I really put them on that kind of hand.

Here's an example.

EP limps.
SB (hero) completes w Jd10d
BB checks.

Flop = 1033
check, bet, call, call.
Turn = 3.
Check, check, bet. Call, call.
River = J
Check, check, bet, call call.
EP shows AA.

So he played the hand like crap and was rewarded. I guess good for him but what a dream board for his hand to get paid off in two spots.

So the first thing that comes to my mind is if there is a way to exploit this.
I can't see how I can except they will end up exploting themselves when someone outflops them on a dry board and they pay off. Like in the example, if SB or BB had a 3 they would have been punished. So I guess long term they are making a loosing play but this passive bs really drives me nuts because they probablly think they are a genius so being so sneaky.

Am I missing something or am I correct?

I see this all the time top with check calling with TPTK all the way to the river, and other fairly nutty hands. It's like they don't want to make money?!?! Way to win the minimum, lol.

Don't pay off the nits and stations. Boom. Exploited.

These players can be quite frustrating.

The fact is that they are exploiting themselves by winning the minimum. Try to remember this and brush it off.

Also in the example hand, maybe you could check turn, if you think what this particular type of player could be calling with that is worse. Required reads on this specific player type though if you see them always limping strong hands.

Check fold flop vs nit.

There's absolutely no reason to think the person is a nit, unless you think he didn't raise pre-flop because his hand wasn't good enough.

I don't know why you're so upset that someone was sneaky. You're supposed to be sneaky.

You don't seem overly worried that someone had a three. Wouldn't you have been punished if they did? Was your play a losing one?

Why do you think people don't make money when they call?

p.s. It's amusing to me that there's so many threads where everyone is desperate to 3-bet, 4-bet, or 5-bet their pocket-aces because it's just horrible to be in a multi-way pot. On the other hand when I'm playing against someone with aces and they make me fold pre-flop I'm the happiest person on earth.

OP is the one that mentioned nits. It isn't clear if villain is a nit but if he is then check fold flop.

Make hands that are better than 1 pair and value own them.
If they are calling, put those hands into their range and adjust.

If they will bet or call here with 77, 88, 99, Tx, and JJ+ then evaulate and adjust. If they will only bet or call here with Tx, and JJ+ then we need to react differently.

People who slow play AA/KK pre flop are not unbeatable. We just need to add different hands into their range and go from there.

The big mistake is completing with JTs in the SB. Nobody is committed to playing post flop and you need to hit big to do much other than check it down. Of the two of you, I'd say you played worse than he did. What Tx hand is he limping pf that you beat on the flop?

I'm confused by this, can you please explain what you are suggesting besides the action he took?

By making the minimum with their strong hands they are exploiting themselves for you. Dont worry about it.

Played in a game similar to this yesterday where they were limping in AK/AQ/JJ type of hands and flatting with QQ+

Like some already posted here. Make TPTK+ and own them.

Hands like AJ almost become unplaya left if this type of thing is rampant.

Play way more SCs and PPs for set/str8/flush value and smash these guys. There passivity will allow you to see many flop a multiway cheaply

Fold pf. I believe in the trinity. That means, hand strength, position and skill. If you hold two of them, you will win more often than lose. In this case, nobody can argue that the villain in EP has a worse hand that limped in. The villain also has position. Therefore, you're going to lose more often than you'll win. I know a lot of people talk themselves into that it is only $1 and they are getting 5:1. But they aren't. They're going to have to bet a lot more money in the rest of the hand to hope to collect.

Now I know people also believe that initiative should be added. However, the OP gave that up too. I'll leave with this thought. If you're playing exactly as the fish would play, how are you going to make money?

Now I understand what you were saying, thanks for clarifying. For the record, I would never fold JT suited from the SB with no raises. It seems our views are so drastically different it's probably not worth continuing this discussion!

I believe in the trinity as well (adding initiative as a 4th). In this spot, I'm calling pre because although villains have position, I have an edge in skill. Hand strength should be a wash vs villains' limping range. Note that we don't know that this villain has AA when we make our decision.

Ok, so there is one limper in EP folds to hero in SB with Jd10d and we are supposed to fold pre? I don't think so, but I could deinitely see the arugment for folding the flop. When BB bets and V calls my 10 is probablly no good. But as played with the BB checked the turn, I didn't put BB or V on a 3 and was compelled to call and figured it a chop most of the time and then when the J falls on the river how can I fold?

But my bigger question isn't so much how I played this particular hand. Every hands is debatable. Shoot - the play hands 100x worse on the tv cash games. All kinds of plays we would bash if they were not pros. The BIGGER picture I am getting at is how to exploit in general those villians who limp with their strongest hands and their medium strength hands too. I play with such an array of players that is is hard to pinpoint or remember who does it. I can remember more who DOES NOT. But the weak/bad players are so unpredicitable that they may raise with AA or limp/call with it. Then the same player my limp reraise with 88 or AK once in a while too. SO, I think over time they are playing a looisng strategy so they exploit themselves. But in that moment its really hard to put someone who limps on JJ-AA when you are playing a limpy game to begin with. It is a little easier at 2/5 or more agressive games to narrow ranges. So my bigger question was a basically if there is another way to exploit this beyond just being patient and owning them in later hands.

+1

Most of the time we loose $1
Some of the time we flop a naked flush draw or naked str8 draw which we are forced to play passively as we know villian with an op is gonna pile it in if we lead thus diminishing our "skill edge"
Some of the time we run into someone in the field with a diamond draw and some of the time there draw is bigger and the limper we know has a made hand (terrible situation)
Some of the time we flop 2 pair and we are up against either a set or combo draw from someone in the field, yes in this circumstance we are doing very nicely against what will usually be the limped overpair but people applying heat from the field means we are beat some of the time or it's close.
Very occasionally we flop the nut str8 and no cards on further streets come to slow us down.
Some times we flop a combo draw and we forced to flip or play it passively and make minimum when we hit especially if we hit on the river

I could expand on this list of questionable situations that we are gonna find our selfs in from completing here. Skill has little to do with it. I only complete with J10s if we are deep so we can see clearly when we are behind and have plenty of room to b/f and we can get the right Implied odds to draw.

We are most certainly not forced to play draws passively out of the small blind.

Assuming this is 1/2, we are only paying half price. I know this sounds like fish talk, but the math supports it--we're making a $1 decision to win $6 against two other players, so our equity share is effectively double. I'd argue that we're doing at least half as well as anyone else in the hand.

RE: OP - I would argue that someone who open limps a wide range that includes the nuts is less exploitable than someone who open limps a wide, capped range. I'm not saying that how they play AA is good, necessarily, but you're looking at it wrong if you're trying to figure out how to abuse his play of AA.

If you're playing in a game where villains are limping T5s pf in EP, then by all means call with JTs. Otherwise, hand strength isn't a wash. Play with a Pokerstove (yeah, I'm old school) equivalent to see why.

I confess I'm a position nit. If I had a choice of having never having QQ UTG and have the odds increase by the same amount of having 76s on the button, please give me 76s on the button. I'm going to make a lot more money.

The problem with JTs on the SB is that most people are going to play it the same way as the fish will play it. Playing like a fish isn't going to win me more money. If I felt the urge to play JTs in this situation, I like a raise better.

When I wrote that I was thinking there were multiple limpers, and JTs plays very well multiway. Even so 3 ways our hand is still a wash vs our 2 opponents (with the bb often having a hand that isn't very playable post flop) and fairs ok against a normal EP limping range (pocket pairs, suited aces being weighted quite heavily). Fact is, even if villain has us dominated with AJ we are still technically getting the right price to call.

I agree with you about position. It's extremely important. Our hand ranges are obv different though because if I'm at a soft table I'm raising 67s from UTG and will potentially play the T5s from late position (but obv not from EP).

Fwiw, if I felt villain had a propensity to limp AA preflop from EP I am more apt to play any 2 cards from the SB knowing that it will be difficult for him to fold postflop.

Hero should lead flop. Lead for small sizing. Check fold the turn with this kicker if they bet even half pot. They have you most likely if this is the case.