How about this for maybe some more thoughts in the KQ vs 88 debate:

Against 22 - 77 that do not flop the set and hands < 88, 88 and KQ probably have close to the same FE as an aggressor.

Against better hands than 88, KQ will always have more equity (except against AA and KK) than 88.

Are you joking? Lots of people limp/call AQ and AK and always talk about how they think AK is soooo overrated and laugh at people who raise with it.

^^^ agree, who limp folds AQ and AK at these games? like no weak passive players.

I don't necessarily agree with him. But he's obviously not saying they fold. He is saying that they most often raise these hands, not limp them.

And AQ and AK are only two of the hands people limp. They also will limp call with suited kings with no kicker, some offsuit kings with a weaker kicker and some worse queens.

Worry about being dominated when you flop top pair, bet the flop, and a loose passive limp/caller raises you. Don't allow fear of being dominated or of missing the flop to keep you from getting value from all the worse hands that they will limp call.

You have the same problem when you raise first in from MP with KQs. You do raise that, don't you? Everybody left to act has AQ and AK in their calling range.

I'm not suggesting anyone limp folds AQ and AK, but LOL if they do. Generally, those who limp with AQ and AK from EP-MP are doing so because they're TP, or maybe TAG. In my experience the TP will call you down all three streets, unless the board comes a 4-card straight or flush, for instance, so you can adjust easily. A TAG is likely to 3-bet AK, even AQ, depending on Hero's image. The only real concern is the TAG who will flat with the intention of trapping, because you have a LAGish image (which doesn't really apply in your case, I would think). So, given the position and image of the Villains in question, in most cases, you can avoid a RIO scenario. Once again, it comes down to the question of how often are you likely to be called by worse combos than KQ? More often than not by all the LPs. We should be thinking in terms of ranges, not specific monster-under-the-bed hands. I mean, do you put Villains on raising-ranges in relation to position? How many Villains are only raising QQ+ from EP-MP (remember we're talking 0.9% range here, which means they're raising probably less than once per 3-4 hours)? How many Villains are only calling AQ+ from EP-MP? I know there are TPs out there at LLSNL, but are there so many of them that we're not willing to play a value-hand such as KQ with suitable aggression?

bolded is no; just no. Tag's aren't trapping from MP thinking we are raising from the blinds OOP with a weaker range.

Today I was at a pretty loose game. I raised ATss from the blinds to $20 after 5-6 limpers and got 2 calls. Flopped a FD and cbet on a K high board. My image was tight though so the intention was to double barrel the loose callers off weak Kx. Villains were the type that were loose preflop but double barrels would work oftentimes vs their weak made hand range.

Session 1: +$103
Session 2: No real hands that I raised light from the blinds except KJo. ATss was the only close one that resembled a lightish raise aside from this, but I consider it a value raise for the most part.

KJo after a casade of limpers. 6 limpers and I make it $20. 1 call. Once again I flop well, K22. I check since villain does goofy things, like underbet the pot with air if checked to and its rainbow HU. He checks. Turn is a jack and I bet $30, he folds. +$30

$103+30= $+133 so far

Again, I think this is marginal at best. I have been flopping well since I have started keeping track. I expect this to level down a bit and become slightly +ev against the right bunch.

TAGs raise or fold. They don't limp/call, especially not with top pair hands.

(not at LLSNL anyway)

Forgot about a hand where I goofed up and leaked a lot of profit. A6 2 limps, I make it $15 in BB 1 call by a fairly loose player but will fold on missed boards. Peels with oesd OR FD, maybe midpair/top pair.
Flop 378 2 spades, I bet $25 he calls. Turn is 5d. I make a stupid shove putting him all in, villain calls with 56hh. 5 otr. Lost -80
Hand was played poorly though I am ahead of his FD and picked up turn equity.

103-50= $53 so far

Thanks for the update. I have only one concern. Should you include A10s as a speculative hand in the blinds? To my mind, it's too strong, like KQo. A6 and KJo are definitely okay. Maybe you need to astrix A10s and KQo as borderline in your stats (probably 88-99 too). If AJo is a clear-cut value hand, then A10s should be as well.

PS. With regard to TAGs definitely not trapping with AK or AQ preflop, I think this makes my argument about the KQ TPTK scenario stronger, since it's only TPs that are potential RIO demons, keeping in mind that TPs are generally much easier to play post-flop.

I think if people dont raise 99 or KQ/ATss/AJo consistently and are solid players, they are shortchanging their development as a good poker player. I dont think I am going to include these as they are VALUE hands overall, even OOP. These hand I will post are basically semibluff hands, and hands that take advantage of limp/foldy people

The part I agree most with is the development bit. If we are trying to get better at poker putting ourselves in marginally -EV situations is not necessarily a bad thing. Playing OOP is a skill that can be developed like any other in poker. And learning to play better OOP is a good thing.

Not only will this turn some marginally -EV plays into marginally +EV plays. It widens our range and makes it harder to figure out what we have when we raise from the blinds. So we make more money with our strong hands as well.

I've started raising more from the blinds in spots where I would auto-check.

I'd like to add to the discussion that in my experience, the first limper has a huge impact on the hand. If the first limper calls, it starts a waterfall. If he folds, everyone folds.

If your in a marginal spot in the blinds (ATo-KJs), If the first limper is the type to limp/fold pre, Raise that puppy up.

^^ thats what I was thinking, the first decides the decision of the rest of em and so on. That plays a little more weight in my decision than anything.

lol.. I can't help but think of the times when the tag sits down and starts raising alot specially in position when the table used to be a limpfest and I was happy. I start limping these hands just so that these players on the button will raise 5 people will call and I'm even happy squeeze shoving with them.

I'm interested to know whether you would limp/3-bet with AQ+ when a TAG raises from the blinds. OP argues that this doesn't happen, I'm still not sure. I believe OP would agree a limp 3-bet with AQ+ is possible against a LAG. But against a TAG, yes or no?

I don't subscribe to lag or tag. Players don't always fit into boxes and while it is useful to group interms of these terminoligies I think sometimes it gets people into trouble or stops them from paying attention to individual tendencies after they have grouped them. If there are no lags at the table or people who open alot then I don't see why I would ever limp with these kind of hands in the first place. So the answer would be no, but keep in mind image is what other people think of us not what we think of ourselves. people may think of themselves as tags and raising dead money but what I pay attention to particularly is if someone is raising out of their sb alot or on the button alot then I love to limp big and squeeze occasionally.

Raised KJoff in the blinds to $20 after about 4-5 limpers that had a limp/fold range. I got one caller and the flop came out AKT all hearts (I had no heart) I bet/folded $25 he raised me to $100 and showed a straight with no redraw. He limp/called me with QJss, so I guess the flop was rough but I was ahead of a moderately tight players calling range. Results so far are marginal at best.

$53-$45= +$8 so far

I won a nice sized pot recently with QJss but I consider this a value raise with less than 3 limpers, so I didnt include this hand in my results. I will include KJss, QJss, QTss in the results so long as there is a cascade of limpers and I try to squeeze it out. Range for squeeze agression in general is offsuit weak broadways up to KQo and ATo, and pocket pairs 66-88.

I dont understand the Cbet here. this board is scary enough that if you check, you won't get a bet from villain unless you are beat. Also you will not get called unless you are beat. You have second pair here and SDV. Betting gets you very little (if any) more information than checking.

I agree with your concept pay, however I don't think its as profitable at 1/2. Balancing your range is a HUGE part of your game but not when the people you're playing against can't even assign ranges. This works much better at 2/5 and 5/10. I still do this at 1/2 though, but only if im deep and there's some above average players at the table.

My understanding is that this "experiment" is designed more for value than balancing the OP's range. The idea is that you get called by worse preflop, which offsets the fact that you're OOP. It's an interesting point, though, since we're assuming that 1/2 players are for the most are Level 1, insofar as they only care about their cards. I wonder, Pay4, do you ever get the feeling that your opponents believe you are "squeezing" and therefore might be calling you light?

[QUOTE=Pay4Myschool;31716154]First off, a little background about myself in regards to live success: I am a $16.50/hour winner at 1/2 over a 1.7k hour sample size since 2009, so I am a solid winner (maybe not "crushing", but worthy of some merit). I have played limited 2/5 and have had "run hot" not included in this sample space, and dont play it regularly at the moment.
This post is mainly for players with a lot of live experience.

Lately I have been experimenting with raising light out of the blinds in nitty games where its a limped pot. Here is an example of a scenario:

3 limps, tough crappy game and hero is in the BB with A9 or ATo or 66-77 or weaker broadways like KT sometimes even KTo at soft weak games

Hands that are standard opens for me in LP I have experimented with raising from blinds with, trying to take advantage of limp foldy players and playing who are loose passive, fit or fold players that wont float..

Hero used to: check his option 95% of the time.
Hero now: Makes a larger raise about 70% of the time, and checks his option 30% of the time(something like a raise of $15-17 in a 1/2 game). about 60-70%(estimated) of the time at tighter games I am getting away with it preflop and winning uncontested.

When called by one of the nitty players, I seem to freeze. I know their calling range is small ppairs pre or a scared AJ or AQ that just doesnt like to raise preflop unless he or she has it.

I feel like I am breaking even with these plays, maybe winning or losing a couple bucks. I want to hear your guys' initial thoughts.




This is a huge topic. But I can say that many of the points that you have reflected on are way off, and thus this is prolly working against you rather than the other weaker way you played the blinds.

In a session this weekend I had ATo in the big blind and this thread immediately jumped up. There were 3 limpers and I was getting ready to join in on your experiment, but then the CO (who is fairly tight with raises) raised it to 10. (1-2 game). I considered popping it. The problem is that I had not seen this player squeeze multiple limpers before. In fact, he often joins in on the limp fests. Therefore with his range at AJ+ and 99+ I had to fold. The limp callers all had worse than ATo That clarified to me that I SHOULD raise it had it gotten to me unraised. Also I would have 3 bet it against a LAG who has a habit of stealing multiple limps light.

Although I like this discussion, every situation is so different that I dont think any attempt to gather statistics is valid. Had a typical player (who tries to pick up the limps with a raise in late position and will do so light) I would 3 bet there all day.

This process of thinking about it and analyzing the move does help my play. 2 weeks ago I would have thought "he might be trying to make a move and pick up those blinds" and I would have called. Now I decide whether he is probably making the move and raise if he is and fold if he is not.

As for Aintnolimit's post about doing it 70%, I don't know what percentage I will end up doing it, but generally I am not a fan of the Harrington method of doing something a percentage of the time based on a random variable. If the move is close, I go on the metagame dynamics. If I did it before and had to show down, I might not do it again. If I was successful once, I might do it again, if I was doing it too much in a session, it might be too apparent and I might stop. Since so many plays are based on metagame dynamics, I would hate to be in a situation where I had to make the play because I was keeping statistics on it. If I chose not to make the play, the stats would become invalid. If Metagame dynamics dictate I do not make the play and I do anyway to protect the integrity of my stats, I am knowingly making a -EV play.

Anyway, I like the move in general under the right circumstances and I will post hands on this thread where I tried it, and I will also post situations on this thread where I decided to not try it.

Thanks for the contribution Bagzz. My last couple sessions I havent popped it in this spot... I will also continue to post when I try this.