I see this happening so much in my casino. So lots of dead money and i started re-raising and take it down with a cbet or delayed cbet on the turn. these are just weak plays.

When do you do this?

Say 4 people limp & HJ raises to $8 with a range of 22+, A8s+/A9o+, K9s/KTo, QTs/QJo, J9s/JTo, 65s+. That's about a 20.7% range.

So all things being equal, you'll see him raise multi-limpers to $8 from 4 off the button to the button [5 seats] 2 times out of 10 in each seat.
Or, every ten orbits, he'll raise to $8 ten times when nobody has raised yet.

More often when he's catchin' good cards in those seats PF, less when he isn't.

Of course, this play cannot be made unless the stacks are deep enough so that the IO are not being killed, other than when limpers fold PF, which in turn gives him more FE postflop.

How do you handle that in the BB? What do you need to tangle with the player & how do you proceed?

Can you expound on why you believe this play is "weak" as opposed to playing the range in another manner?

don't forget to take out strong hands he would raise more with (TT+ at+ kq)?

It all depends. Will try to share some thoughts based on 'my casino'.

There are typically 3 types of players who min raise pf. 1) min raise only with small pp from all position 2) min raise with small pp/ small Axs & kxs from all position 3) min rase only in position with pp/ small Axs & kxs.

all most all never have a balancing range ( it hardly matters in live though) and have bet sizing tells. This min raise method is pretty effective and those who makes money are those who have excellent postflop edge. they make pot bigger to make aggro players commit bigger mistakes. they adjust & readjust. however, most players at small live stakes are thinking about there hand when they do this and have no clue when short stacks shove over the top. Also there hand is face up post flop. I say this is weak because, all most all of the pf limpers will join and its very very difficult to hand read when you hit two pair or a draw with these hands (except pp). In fact i employ almost same strategy.. lol. for the first 1 or 1.30 hrs i limp call all most all hand and is very passive until i get reads.. so whenever i reraise over the min raiser, nobody have a clue. it all depends. After 1.5 hrs i am spewytard though.. there are so many easier way than min raise though. will expand later

Then I squeeze the **** out of him every single time he does until he adjusts. If he calls I cbet any dry board. If he 4bets I just dump it. If somebody else calls I still cbet any dry flop since they called for the same reason he would. If everyone calls well then I just give up immediately. If villain plays back postflop I just give up. But if villain is smart enough to try and play back at us he's never making stupid preflop mistakes like this in the first place so it's a total non-issue.

Sounds like a solid plan javi-- I shall give it a try.. Thanx.
I assume when you squeeze against him, with 4 other limpers, you're raising to at least $35?
That would give him $51 -[$5r/$1BB] $45:$27 or 1.67:1 on his money if limpers fold.

There are empirical evidences to support why this approach does not yield anywhere near highest EV in most instances.

I still like the idea of seeing a dude raise $7 at live 1/2 and going "wow that sure is a guy who's got poker figured out"

I'm usually bumhunting those guys.

Yes $35 is good. I might make it $40 with stronger more value oriented hands, KTo, AJo, 77+ etc. But 35 is good with your junky stuff like J9o, 9To, A6o, K7s, etc. I'll pitch the total airball garbage like 25o and what not just because I expect to get called sometimes and want to have at least a little showdown value.

I realize now how much I have been leaking with this approach.
I just switched from a .25/.50c game that always played 200bb to 600bb deep, where I could get away with pot building because of the HUGE implied odds. As I've moved up to $1/2 where stack sizes are anywhere from 50bb to 250bb if I'm lucky, I'm just bleeding money and when I stack someone for 50bb I actually lose money long term!

Are you talking about OP's smaller raise idea, or javi's approach for attacking the player who practices this. If you're referring to javi's approach, please be so kind as to reference those studies that provides this evidence. Thanks.

It's pretty much trying to figure out:

-Number of players that are likely to be in the hand
-Odds of flopping hands that will be ahead in equity against x number of players
-Odds of realizing our equity to SD
-Odds of fold equity against x number of players
-Odds of flopping draws
-Odds of equity with those draws
-Odds of realizing implied odds with those draws
-Odds of reversed implied odds

And probably more if I actually expand on these.

Given that above has so many variables and is complex, the closest to figuring it out is either using EV simulation calculator or collect enough samples of variables to make hypothesis.

Either way, you kind of have to just trust conventional wisdom that more players there are in a hand, harder it is to win it. Take it however you like, but know that just because the pot is bigger, doesn't mean the decisions were of higher EV.

Ok, so you were talking about OP's idea of min-raising PF with good MW hands. I thought you meant you knew of empirical evidence already documented.
One variable not mentioned is how much your implied odds are reduced when players are short-stacked. If they're all 600 BBs deep, it really doesn't matter if you min-raise, since it would just be like playing 2/5 instead of 1/2. But I've never been at a 1/2 table with 6 players with 600 BB stacks.

With SC's, this is pretty spewy because we are giving up fold equity by creating a multiway pot. By raising large enough to fold out most of the limpers, we gain fold equity postflop for the times we cbet without hitting. We gain control of the hand to check back bad flops, and also get to draw cheaply to gutshots, 2p's, SD's, FD's. SC's simply don't flop well enough often enough to get by on showdown equity alone, therefore we should be only be raising in LP after limpers who can actually fold to raises.

With small pp's, I think it's actually ok to raise smallish to get 3-5 callers as opposed to a family pot. Reason being that we would like to build the pot for when we hit a set and stack off by the turn or river with a straightforward bet/bet/bet line. It's not great to have the whole table come along because then it's more likely that you run into weird straights like 47 on a 356 board. Obviously this changes if your table is 3b happy, then it's better to limp/call and set mine profitably.