I think this is a pretty significant leak of mine, and am going to completely remove over-limping/open-limping EP-MP (UTG through MP1 perhaps) sc's and sc2's. I am bleeding money making thin calldowns and being unable to pick pots up with "c/r OTF, pot OTT-type" lines even on rather wet/terrible boards for a naked overpair, in 150bb effective pots, offering resistance to an LP preflop raiser.

In my last couple sessions I have broken even mainly due to the losses sustained from these situations. Was wondering whether anyone else here had made a similar adjustment, and what other, larger leak this might be symptomatic of?

Cheers.

yeah if u r gonna limp thats cool i guess esp at passive tables.. i still dont like to do a lot of it personaly... but limp calling raises, as you have already guessed, is lighting money on fire.

a lot of times, the fact that we dont do that is one our biggest edges v. fish imo

fish limp/call imo.

try mucking all SCs and only playing ATs+/QJ+/22+ and maybe 78-JTs in LP in a 1/2 game. thats it. there is really no reason to play anything else to beat the game.

The trick for me was making a rule that I always come in for a raise 1st or 2nd in if I'm going to play a hand. I know there are styles where good players limp some of their range, but for me this rule improved my game 1000 fold....

Hands like SC and Axs depend so much on fold equity, they do not hit hard very often but hit for semi bluffs a lot. Since semi bluffing often needs postion, if I don't think I will have position, I don't play them from ep.

From mid position 1st or 2nd in it depends on table, if a raise will likely get me the effective btn at least a reasonable % I will raise them otherwise I fold them.

I never just over limp multi way, with these hands, untill I'm at the Co or BTN since now there is a good chance I will have position.

Think about how you expect the hand to play out when making your preflop plans..

I'm guessing this is because lots of LLSNL fish raise much tighter ranges than you think. They overlimp 99, AQ, meaning their raising range is fairly saturated with overpairs.

It goes without saying that you should never try to make a fish fold an overpair.

ty heading out for session now, will do it.

GL.

Don't limp unless you're comfortable with it.
Limping behind (at passive tables only ofc) will boost your winrate by quite a bit imo.
But only once you have your fundamentals down. Play position and solid hands, once you get used to doing that, and have a feel for the table then start trying to incorporate limping.

In early position its generally a bad idea to just open limp sc's. Playing those type of hands requires you to be aggressive with your draws (or hit gin flop haha) and this is much easier to do when you're in later position.

I reserve limping with anything other than small PPs to tables where there are people I'm desperate to play pots with. I think people often fail to distinguish enough between people who are just too loose passive but have some card sense and people who will make huge spastic mistakes in half the hands they are in. If I can limp 78s when they are in the game and not be exploited by other players then I'll do it.

I'm overlimping suited A for 100bb ES, but folding or raising besides that. Thanks all for weighing in...

good idea. never limping again will probably improve your win rate.

+1

Its all about understanding the table dynamics and targeting the right villains. I absolutely love limping SCs in multiway pots with terribad passive villains.

If you have the implied odds, getting 30:1 or better on your money, then this is insanely profitable IF AND ONLY IF:

#1 you're at a passive table that doesn't punish limpers
#2 there are passive players that price in all manners of draws post flop
#3 calling stationy players that chase and don't fold made hands when OBVIOUS draws hit
#4 weak tight players that fold to semibluffs, scare cards, etc
#5 you can distinguish between #3 and #4
#6 limping with hands that play well in multiway pots
#7 limiting your limp range to SCs and SGs (suited gapers) only

If I can find the above table, I love to limp with Axs, 63s, 64s-KQs, and baby pairs.

The reason I love 63, 64, 65 is because when the board makes a low wheel like 5 4 2 you can stack A3, or even better, when the board runs 5 4 3 2, you can stack multiple bottom Ace straights with your 6. I love shoving in that spot and having th efish call and say, "I had the straight, I had to call "

The problem most limp callers face is they limp too much with offsuit garbage. If you add offsuit connectors and gapers in your limp call range, then you will be entering way too many pots. The other problem most limp callers make is that they don't ditch their hands soon enough and peel off too many bets trying to improve their hands.

Lastly, another reason many limp callers aren't profitable is because when they do hit their hands on the turn or river, they go for the good ol check/raise and surprise surprise, villain checks back and they lose all sorts of value.

Add all that up, and THAT is why most EP limpers bleed money.

But if you know how to adhere to #1 - #7, then you can profitably limp from EP.

If the table is short stacked and passive you can limp EP with small pp's but I'd fold SC's

This all worked quite well. Basically took masaraksh preflop standard and dgiharris opening sizing, found myself picking up cbets with a much higher percentage than usual. Many thanks...

For the most part this is bad bad. The only reason to play low suited connectors when you know you will be playing oop is to disguise your range. In low stake poker this is virtually never going to be a consideration.

Don't kid yourself for every big pot you win because hit the rare miracle, you will loose a big pot, because flush over flush occurs, 2 pair gets counterfeited ect. Hell you will bet your flush draws some times not hit and get beaten by the higher flush draw. And in the meantime you will just slowly bleed out..

These hands do not make money without fold equity. These hands flop euqity, second pair, weak draws, good draws a lot. OOP even in passive games unless you incredible at reading hands and opponents, you will not be able to bluff enough to gain the fold equity you need for these hands to become profitable.

Even hands like Axs is generally a leak from early position. Here it might be closer if your sure the table passive and players can't lay down a flush. But it really needs deep stacks and thus plays better for a raise if you must play them.

And don't kid yourself even in passive games, where players only raise JJ+ and AK...if your limping utg 10 handed...someone will have one of those hands over 20% of the time and you will have to fold...

A lot of good responses imo. I don't think limping from here at 1/2 tables is in-and-of itself a leak, but I do agree that there is a list of things that need to be happening for limping from EP to be correct.

I'll list my own requirements, but most have been said:

-Stacks are deepish or my marks are deepish giving me greater implied odds.
-My marks/the entire table isn't isoing preflop too often.
-I'm comfortable playing my villains OOP.
-I do it with hands like 22+, good suited paint cards (sometimes) and some great higher to mid SCs.

If you are having issues with it, cut it out of your game and solidify your IP playing and you can slowly add it back in once you feel more confident.

You certainly don't need to have a limping range from EP to be a winning player at all.

I don't see how you can say this when in LLSNL poker there are so many villains willing to stack off with TPGK

Similarly, there are so many situations in which we can easily bet/fold since rec players play so straight forward and transparent.

To be fair, playing in the manner I outlined does require you to have a decent post flop game.

Anyways, given by how transparent a lot of LLSNL players are and how many fish will stack off with TPGK type hands, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

low suited connectors do not hit big hands enough. Its even rarer for them to hit a big hand, and the LLSNL player to hit TPGK.

Bet folding because they are so transparent when you are beaten, is still loosing money.

These hands absolutely depend on fold equity...they rarely hit monsters but do hit equity....and guess what, for the same reason you are arguing you should call....LLSNL can't fold blah blah blah....you now have a much harder time bluffing...add to that your playing them OOP so you loose the transparent information, of a check or small bet to tell you your semi bluff has a better chance of winning.

These hands become more profitable not less profitable against players who can fold.

I have no idea what you are smoking to say the above as an absolute statement. There are PLENTY of instances in LLSNL where you can limp and basically get 50:1 or even 100:1 in implied odds not to mention throwing in 4:1 or better in direct odds since others will often limp.

I won't argue against fold equity aiding SCs, absolutely, fold equity increases profitability, so no argument there.

And yes, position helps yada yada yada...

I'm not arguing AGAINST those things. This isn't an exclusive binary set, this isn't an either or thing. What i'm arguing is merely under the right circumstances, you can limp with SC OOP and it be profitable.

Some of my biggest nights have been limping at passive tables in which there was a couple of super droolers gambling it up playing every hand. I limp getting 200:1 on my money, five way action, I flop a gut shot straight draw, V1 bets 3bb, V2 calls, V3 calls, V4 folds, I call. Turn, I hit my gut shot and proceed to prison rape both V's....

and yes, that rarely happens....

but guess what, with 200:1 implied odds-- "rarely", is all I need for it to still be INSANELY PROFITABLE!!!!!

All you have to do is identify situations and villains in which the math works out and it becomes profitable. And limping as a deep stack against villains that don't raise preflop but are willing to overvalue their hands post flop is pure gold...

Harrington's book Volume I (on the Cash game) has a section where he discusses the impact of hand strength vs chip stack depth and playing SCs.

anyways, we will agree to disagree.

Yes I will agree that if your in a game where you can shovel in enough money in a limped pots with a big hand oop, and get called by tpgk, then your right. I just think players tend to forget that for 200 to 1 implied odds to exists some one has to be will to put 200 into a pot with a hand that your still beating.

In fact I find it much more profitable to raise small pairs ( a small amount) from early position in 70 + bb games, because its so hard to get stacks in when you hit your set in limped pots oop. But that is another argument.

..

Back when I was playing a lot of on-line poker, the micro-FR forum was consistent in doing a COTW. It was fascinating to watch within a couple of days seeing people implement what was written on the tables. As the subjects got more advanced, people started making huge mistakes with implementing the concepts. The reason was that they would superficially read the COTW, then do it. Sometimes they just skipped over the assumptions necessary to make it work but sometimes the author didn't spell them out. It got to the point where I asked Split and mpethy to put warning labels on some of the COTW because people could lose a lot of money doing it.

This is a case of that situation. A lot of readers are going to think, "Wow, I can play SC in EP because dgiharris does," without noting the conditions. In EP, if you are playing SCs, almost everyone at the table has to be passive. This is becoming rarer at least where I play, even at 1/2. If anything, people are starting to 3bet a lot more, let alone raising pf. If you're at a table where in the first orbit you see 4-5 raises pf, you aren't at a passive table.

My only quibble with the post is that if you are limping with SC early, you can have both #3 and #4 players behind you. You generally don't know who you will be up against on the flop and the value of your hand goes down if you're up against calling stations. The reason is that you'll miss more often than you'll hit your hand. Unfortunately, calling stations see more flops (because they are calling stations).

I don't know what B/E is, even after reading the whole thread.

I think that if you are at a passive table, EP limping to set up a chain of limpers is not horrible, but limp/calling is horrible. Many people limp a speculative hand with a plan of hitting big or folding OTF, but then when raised they rationalize about their wonderful disguised hand if they hit, and sure their direct odds went down, but now we know V likes his hand so our implieds go up, etc. Then they change plans mid-stream and bleed money like a hemophiliac because they're hand is crushed by V's range and SPRs are low.

Cliffs: If you think your table is passive, you should never be limp/calling. If you think a raise is likely, you are not at a passive table and should not be limping.

I'm pretty much always dumping suited connectors / 2gappers in EP/MP (and never open limping these hands). They are hard to play postflop (where if someone in EP bets and we're on a draw, we don't know if we can call the bet due to having a bunch of people still to act behind us); plus they are more difficult to get paid off on postflop when we do hit thanks to our poor position (i.e. we can't guarantee streets not checking thru, we sometimes have to donk into the field when we make our hand which will be taken as a lot stronger than had we simply bet when everyone weakly checks to us in position, etc.). If the table was loose and passive, I'd probably overlimp after a couple of limpers from MP if it's unlikely to get raised behind, cuz at least I'll have position on half the field (and if everyone folds behind me, I might almost end up with the button). If we feel like we have to mix things up, I'd open for a raise every once and a blue moon (especially at tighter tables), but that's about it.

FYI: You can't form conclusions on the +EV vs -EV of plays due to a couple of sessions worth of results.

I agree, you can and often will have both players at the table. I merely meant that you recognize and know who is who and adjust accordingly.

I agree, limp/calling is horrible which is why I state that you have to be at a passive table.

the problem with playing SC's/gappers is that they are intrinsically tough to play OOP since they flop draws. I'd likely dump them all and only limp 22-66 at a loose passive table with a lot of short stacks.

If the table is loose passive but deep I'd raise 98s+, 22+. Might be a leak, I dunno.