NOTE: All of the games I play in are 10% rake, up to $6. I wanted to re evaluate the base ranges that I'm using for overlimping and raising OTB and from CO in multiway limped pots. I'm primarily playing 2/5, but 1/2 is thrown in occasionally - though ultimately I'd say the average 2/5 game I play in is in mildly different/mildly more difficult than the average 1/2 game I play in.

Anyways, as y'all are aware LLSNL games are filled with fish that love to limp. I feel like I've been getting a little too optimistic and have been overlimping too wide. My CO and BTN overlimping range are very similar, unless I'm in CO and BTN is raising pre very frequently.

To be clear, I'm talking about two or more limpers have entered the pot already; I almost always play pots with one limper in the pot the same exact way to how I play if I'm opening the pot.

My overlimping range: K2s-KTs, Q2s-QTs, J7s+, all suited connectors up to JTs, all suited gappers up to Q2s, 22-88, all offsuit broadways except AJo+, all offsuit connectors of 65o+.

My raising range: Everything that's better than the hands I'm overlimping.

How my CO range is different: I scrap all of the offsuit connectors, Q2s-Q8s, and J7s.

I feel like I should be scrapping Q2s-Q6s, and maybe some of the offsuit connectors? What do you think? How are your ranges different?

Super broad question.

But fairly easy answer IMO. Yes your limping way to wide.

Not sure what your general plan is with K4s postflop. But I don't see how it is profitable.

What sort of stack sizes are typical? The deeper the stacks the wider you can limp profitably. How aggressive the table is post also matters, if you can check down a lot you can realize your equity on weakish made hands more but won't be able to get paid on your surprise nut hands as much.

No matter what, those ranges look too wide. Particularly the weak suited KX/QX/JX. Those hands tend to be traps, you flop top pair and have no idea if you should bet/fold/raise.

I'd say in the 1/2 games, the typical stack sizes are 50BB-200BB, with the average probably being sightly under 100 BB.

2/5, the typical stack sizes are 50BB - 400BB, with the average probably being around 150 BB.

Seems way to wide of a overlimping range, especially the raggy suited K a Q. Just fold trash like K2s or Q3s, and execute better more optimal preflop hand selection. Youre ranges needs some tuning, so its probably a good idea indeed for you to focus on this area of your game.

Ya that is good start. except Q3s. That is best hand in poker. but Q2 and q4 are trash.

So where do suited Ks and Qs stop being shitty? K9s and Q9s?

EDIT:also if my general estimation math is correct, I'm realistically leaking thousands a year in a 2/5 game by playing hands like Q2s and K2s here, assuming it's egrigeous to, and that the average result is losing $5 by overlimping.

Exactly where you throw the line isnt _that_ important in my opinion, the important stuff is to have a general idea. Some games you can profitably limp K8s or K9s if youre up against straight forward horrible droolers, or other games i woudnt even limp K10 off if i am up against a solid lineup. (Yes, it do happens for me-albeit rarely).

For me its more about what i believe will be able to make me money against the lineup/table dynamics i am facing at the time-more than anything else. If i believe the BB is tilted and will likely raise i will overlimp AA on the button to try and get the dream spot. If two good tight grinders have limped in, i am not entering the pot with weak RIO hands that can be difficult to navigate postflop. If a tight uber faceup fit or fold nit have limped in i am widening my limping range considerably, because i will be able to buy a huge amount of pots when he misses the flop or flops a mediocre hand he will be looking to fold to pressure.

These are just kind of extreme examples of course, most pots/dynamics are somewhere in between and it is a constant ongoing process to find the golden balance here regarding your ranges.

Wow, that limping range is way too wide for me.

Of course, it depends, but I don't limp less than KTs, QTs, JTs, and I rarely limp any connectors or gappers that aren't suited. I might limp K9s, but it's rare -- and only because I like dogs, so usually clubs.

Everyone will draw their line in the sand differently, and as Gil mentions it will depend a lot on who has already limped in and who has yet to react / etc.

Personally, on the Button facing no raise I'm typically fine with being in there with 22+/Axs/broadway as well as pretty much most 1 and 2 gappers (suited or not) and sometimes Kxs. I'll tighten up in the CO quite a bit (Button dependent). Whether I raise or limp/overlimp is also dependent on lots of things.

ETA: So long as we don't suck postflop (especially compared to who is already in the pot), I don't think you could go too far wrong looking for an excuse to play your Button in a limped pot. Obviously 100% probably won't be profitable... but it probably wouldn't be too horrendous either. Looks like I'm 40%+ on the Button...

GcluelessloosefishnoobG

I'm with those who believe that over limp range is WAY too wide, especially in $2/$5 NL. That said, that pool of players sounds favorable.

VPIP must be pretty high. Could be leaking, so +1 to Petrucci on focusing pre.

pretty sure unless you're good postflop you should just stick to top 15% hands (button or not) and raising pre the top 10%, looking to end hands on the flop unless you flop sets or very strong draws.

Seems pretty good. I’d personally dump some of the weakest Qxs and offsuit connectors and raise some of the better hands in your range. I might add some more suited connected type stuff like T7s. I may also limp some of the less playable Axs like A6s instead of raising them. I think people ITT are undervaluing Kxs. Suited kings have pretty solid equity and postflop playability.

I have settled on a tighter button limp-behind range (perhaps Axs and PPs that I’m not raising, most suited Broadways). Part of the reason is that in most of my games people LOVE to raise wide from SB/BB after multiple limps. If there are 2-3 limps on the button and I limp behind, I’d estimate it gets raised... 50% of the time, depending on the player? Perhaps a little more? So I try to limit myself to hands where I *might* consider seeing a flop if the blinds do raise and it looks like it might go very multi-way

I’d limp my entire continuing range if blinds are literally raising 50%. I’d be tighter but still have some limp/calls.

+1

Glimptopunishtheraisers,imoG

I see people play suited Ks all the time, but for some reason I always get crushed with them. I don't necessarily lose a lot, but I often end up running into a bigger K or a bigger flush. It's usually easy to get away, but I don't want to have to get away as often as I seem to with small suited KX.

For me Kxs is mostly about needing position and also needing some morons in the pot. So non-raised to the Button/CO I'm always playing Axs and always not playing Qxs, so Kxs is simply a borderline hand for me where "it depends".

GcluelessNLnoobG

The first thing that comes immediately to mind is that you should be playing substantially tighter, limping far less frequently, in the 1-2 game than in the 2-5, because the maximum rake is so high. 300 blinds/100 is a high hurdle to overcome. I might not limp at all in the smaller game, and am not enthusiastic about limping even in the bigger game. The rake takes a big bite out of our implied odds.

This is itself a mistake (but not germane to the rest of your post). The bottom of your opening range should be thought of as bluffs, your stealing range. You are rather less likely to take down a pot with a raise once a limper has entered. The blinds have random hands, including the very worst ones. A limper caps their range by limping, but they also give their range a floor by having entered the pot at all. Your isolation-raising range should be narrower, stronger, than your opening range for a given position.

The point of limping is implied odds. You want to pay a small amount of money for the chance of making a big hand and getting paid off.

For that to work, you want hands that can make the nuts or otherwise big hands: ace-high flushes, straights, and sets and full houses.

Suited kings can make nut flushes only if there is an ace of that suit on the board. Suited queens need both an ace and a king of that suit on the board, and that's an even bigger parlay. So I would say to lose the suited kings and queens that don't have other ways to make big hands. K9s is the very weakest suited king that should be in your range. I wouldn't go weaker than Q9s.

The thing to notice about suited aces is that below the broadways their value goes down . . . but comes up again with A5s, because of the straight potential. Ace-wheel suited is (game conditions permitting) often good enough to raise with when a hand like A6s or A7s is not.

Suited connectors are better than suited one-gappers, but the latter are playable. Don't waste your time with two-gappers unless they have high-card value.

Pocket pairs are obvious hands to limp with. Set-mining has a long and rewarding history in this game.

So a decent overlimping range is going to look something like { 22-88, A2s, A6s-A9s, K9s-KTs, Q9s, J9s, T8s-T9s, 97s-98s, 86s-87s, 76s, 65s, 54s, AJo, KQo, QJo, JTo }

Remember that implied odds are what make limping hands worth limping . . . and that reverse implied odds are what make them hands to stay away from. When you don't hit the nuts or a nut draw on the flop, but do hit a little something, middle pair or some such, you can win a small pot if the action gets checked down or lose a somewhat larger one if you pay to draw to a second pair or some backdoor.

ETA: Since what we are hoping to do is make the nuts for cheap, refer to this list of hands ordered by nut potential. Obviously many hands towards the top of the list are going to be raises rather than limps, but we want to bias our limping range towards the top of the list.

Thank you everyone for your input. Hopefully by plugging this leak I'll notice differences.
Thank you so much. You're a ****ing poker genius.

Why do the smaller suited broadway A's have more nut potential than the higher ones?



Hand River Nut %
TAs 4.343116789953018
JAs 4.242516609768383
QAs 4.139867466439645
KAs 4.084431336897797

Thanks to the increase in rake in my 1/3 NL game (which is now 10% up to $8 + $1 BBJ + usually a $1 tip, often with non-large stacks), I've also been hypersensitive to the fact I shouldn't be dicking around in a lotta small pots (and should mostly just concentrate on playing large pots). But, two things:

1) I still think it's likely profitable to overlimp a world of limpers in LP with a speculative hand. Yeah, rake sucks (no doubt), but I still think this is one of the rare spots where our IO + position + skill should hopefully make us fairly profitable.

2) Raising isn't the only way to build a big pot. I have a 0% raising range in non-LP (I'm limping every hand I'm playing); not because I want to play a small pot, but because I want to play a *super* large pot by having someone else raise, get a bunch of callers, and then me often reraise. Also, my room doesn't rake pots taken down preflop. I believe our ends are the same (let's concentrate on playing mostly big pots in these conditions), but our means aren't necessarily the same (raising isn't the only way to accomplish our goal).

Gcluelessends/meansnoobG

Because ATs makes more nut straight flushes than AKs does. AKs just makes a royal flush; but ATs makes Q-high, J-high, and T-high straight flushes as well; and they are the nuts because the Ts blocks anyone else from having a bigger straight flush.

Overall from the last two positions, I would focus on thickening raise/fold ranges, as it then will be far far easier to identify what's left in the middle/you'll be able to exploit gameflow+tendencies more simply/you won't get group-thinked into overlimping parties. Looking at these massive ranges seems pretty ridiculous to me overall btw, so just get down to a smaller set of hands that clearly do best as a 1bb vpip equity wise vs 6+ other ranges and raise/fold everything else. Hint Q2s isn't one of them, neither is KTs, neither is T9s, neither are all os 65+.

Glad to see you're back from the dead. I was actually thinking about you the other day. Thanks for your input as always.