I've been doing fairly well at live 1/2 NLH with a healthy winrate (albeit over a small sample of 228 hours). My background is online poker and even after 228 hours I'm still sometimes tripped up on the passivity of play. Plus I know from previous discussions here that I'm weak OOP. Still, the temptation to limp in with a speculative hand other than baby or mid pocket pairs (which seem to play themselves, at least on the flop) is strong, especially when stack sizes seem to warrant it.

Looking back, however, I've lost a lot of money in these situations. From what I remember it's often FH vs. better FH. I estimate my winrate would improve by 20-30% if I had simply folded pre-flop in these situations - and I can count about 4 of them. Nor can I recall ever winning an equivalent pot in a similar situation. People limping in with big pocket pairs especially trips me up. So I've decided to stop limping in with 76s from MP or complete the SB with KJs (I lost 75bb last night against a guy with AA doing just that).

I'm wondering if my performance here is entirely due to a lack of skill - made up for in hand selection and position - or if it's generally a bad idea to limp in with speculative hands in 1/2 live NLH.

I haven't yet sat at a 2/5 table but I imagine the play there is more like online and there simply wouldn't be opportunity to do this.

If the play at the 2/5 tables at your casino is more like online, I would strongly advise to stick to the 1/2 game..

It's hard to tell what went wrong without seeing a hand history, but there aren't that many situations where you are supposed to lose 75BB in a limped pot. Set over set might be one, and with a hand like KJss maybe on a board like AsKxTsKxJx. But that's honestly about it.

Not playing those hands is certainly a possibility, but that's going to cost you money in the long run because limped pots are among the spots where a player with superior postflop skills is supposed to make a decent amount. So I would continue to put myself in those situations but be extremely cautions on the flop and unwilling to play for stacks without the relative nuts.

Last night that hand was a big mistake on my part. Of the 4 times I am thinking of this was the one I recognize to be bad play. I had had a good day, came back to the table to this new player I decided I didn't like, saw him triple barrel with air and decided he sucked. So I called him down. It might have been the 2nd or 3rd orbit together.

Thanks for clarifying that indeed these are good spots. I still need to work on post-flop play.

Yes, Post-Flop is the key in limped pots. Pot control is very important when you are OOP unless you have a monster/monster draw.

There is a phrase out there ... "Never go broke in a limped pot."

Although the chat box online can get nasty .. You see that you don't want to 'target' a player's personality .. you want to target their game, which sometimes may seem to go hand in hand but that may be a ruse. GL

Most live low stakes players think they have a big advantage in post flop play than their villains. Most live low stakes players are wrong. There's nothing wrong per se in limping in with a speculative hand. However, if you are playing bingo and just hoping to hit a big hand, you're almost certainly losing money with those hands. If you don't understand that you want to have position and have few villains in the hand are necessary parts of making money and how you win without the best hand, just fold them.

Oh, that's why you would have a post flop skill advantage.

Thanks, guys. One recent discussion in this forum focused on the elements of winning poker: hand strength, position, initiative and skill. I enjoyed the discussion because it made me realize where my edge was coming from. I also concluded that I need to branch out if I'm going to continue getting better. This includes playing OOP, post-flop play in general, and picking good spots for bluffs and barreling. Closely linked are hand-reading and considering what V likely thinks of my range.

Maybe the OP itself is too results-oriented because I can't deny I've won my share of small to mid-sized pots after limping in with speculative hands or completing the SB. The 4 big ones I lost just stuck in my mind.

I can't fully reconstruct the 3 other three cases because so much time has passed, but I'll try in case there is some valuable info there.

1. Stacks: 125bb effective (V has me covered). I was OOP with 5c3c. Villain was a loose pre-flop player with good post-flop skills. Flop: 5x5xXx. I bet, he called. Turn: 7x. I bet, he called. River: 3x. I check, he bets 30bb (sizeable relative to pot), I go all-in, he calls. He shows 5x7x.

2. Stacks: 95bb effective (V has me covered). I was IP with 9x6x. Villain is a tight (almost nitty), solid reg who rarely bluffs. Flop: 6x6xXx. He checks, I bet, he min-raises, I call. Turn: 5x. He bets, I call. River: 5x. He goes all-in for about a pot-size bet, I call. He shows 6x5x.

3. Stacks: 75bb effective (I have V covered). I was IP with 5h4h. Villain is a sloppy, rec player who calls too often. Flop: Jx4xKx. He checks, I check. Turn: 5x. He checks, I bet, he calls. River: 4x. He bets, I go all-in, he calls. V shows JxJx.

Correction on #2: I was OOP in the blinds. Flop: I bet, he min-raises, I call. Turn: I check, he bets, I call. River: I check, he goes all-in, I call.

One of the things I've learned, especially now that I play more PLO, is that when I have trips on the Flop and action gets to the River I always consider "Who's calling here?" even when I do have a FH. Yes, you want 'full' value but, really, who's calling your all-in and with what hand range?

Turning or Rivering trips seems to go differently, but when you Flop trips it's more a game of chicken than a game of poker if you have action on all 3 streets. GL

This is good advice.

Good advice. Maybe my troubles here really have to do with poor post-flop play after all. Especially in case 1 where he could have had 77 as well. I think the X in that case was a 2 because I can recall talking with him after and I had the 6 combos of 52 and 22 beat.

In case 2 we would have chopped the way I described it. Sorry about that. I am fairly sure the turn and river were the same card giving me a FH, too. I had YYY55 and he had 555YY where Y < 5.

Both players in case 1 and case 2 would not have showed up with trips or AA like many people I come across at 1/2, so "who's calling here" would have helped on the river. Maybe the real problem is that I'm not used to considering these unusual combos - unusual meaning combos of 52 or 57 don't normally leap to mind.

What motivates a live poker player runs the full gamut. Fun, cash, killing time, revenge .. playing in their 'super bowl' as seen on TV. It is a big adjustment for an online player for sure. Live stakes can be 200-2000% more than online and yet the play is inversely as worse!! Take things at face value until a player proves otherwise. GL

Youre often 150-300bb deep live in hands. If you're bleeding money post flop with hands like 76s your not properly valuing the ranges for what you can do what with post flop when you hit
something.

"decided I didn't like" "decided he sucked". It sounds also like you may want to learn to "Zen" yourself at the table too.

Yes, absolutely. The mental game is so important. So far I believe I'm good at weathering card dead stretches without doing anything stupid, but as you point out, I need to work on it in terms of personality.

"decided he sucked"..... this one is OK; but you need to always ask and answer the next for "it" to be of any value to you:

Why does he suck...and how can I take advantage of this particular player?

Of the "bad" variety, some are aggro-nuts, some weak-tight, some are call stations etc. Assigning as such is MUCH better than "he sucks"

After I saw him bluff over 3 streets with air (just the 3 outs for his A) on a board that had at least one overcard on the turn or river, I assumed he was prone to bluffing. That's why I called him down with top pair K, J kicker shortly after. I should have waited for more info instead of basing my judgement on one hand. I definitely let my dislike for him lead me along (I wanted to believe I had spotted a glaring weakness in his play).

For the record, in the 2 hours we played together afterwards he showed himself to overvalue top pair and raise pre-flop too much. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get in a good spot to challenge him. In fact, that this was my mindset was already a problem. I was still showing a profit for the day despite the loss. I should have got up and left but I wanted to "get" this guy. Through general bad play I lost another 75bb over the course of this time, leaving me with about 75bb remaining. For the first time in my live play, I tilted. I decided to triple barrel with QJo against the wrong guy (passive rec guy who likes to chase draws) on the wrong board (a drawing board). I raised pre-flop, got him HU OOP, board played out T9567 (no flush draw completed). Went all-in on the river and he called with T8o.

Ironic that by triple barreling (albeit with 8 paltry outs, maybe 14 if I'm lucky) I repeated the behavior that convinced me villain was a bad player. So what does that make me? Hence this post.

For what its worth: I play 2/5 where the max buy in is 800 and over half the table has or more.

Over limping is fine with pairs up to 88(this is my personal line I draw and stick with). But the reason I don't like limping with hands like 89s is because when you raise and see a flop heads up or 3 ways you can win the pot easily a lot on dry A high boards and you can get paid when you hit.
Now 2/5 games tend to play a lot deeper even at 100bb max buy ins because the raises are more standard 3 or 4x. At 1/2 where you start with 100 or 150BB and the standard open is $10 at least, you should mostly be folding these hands. IMO 1/2 just doesn't play deep enough to make playing 89s worth it.

Your 2/5 table sounds closer to online play. That's how I estimate it will be at my casino. I am basing that estimation on the play of some of the players I come across at 1/2 who are just waiting to get in on 2/5.

At my 1/2 table where many players consider TPGK the nuts, I use the following strategy for (over)limping: with PP (even babies) if I hit I set, I value bet all the way (although I might check the turn OOP against certain players who make betting mistakes and might otherwise fold); with A2-9s it depends on how many outs I get on the flop and if there is an A on the board (I won't bet with an A on the board since it's likely to be called by someone with an A but otherwise with outs and position I will); with SC or suited gappers I will bet with 13 or more outs and position and 2 V's or less. If there are more than 2 V's, I usually won't call a bet unless I have 14 or more outs, in which case I might raise depending on the V and how many people folded. Since these tables are passive and people like to chase draws, if the turn doesn't make my hand I will fold to a sizeable bet (that doesn't give me the right pot odds) from OMC; otherwise I am inclined to check it behind but may considering betting/raising IP against younger players who may float.

Also, I hope I haven't given the impression I'm a jerk at the table. Everything I described earlier I kept inside. At the table, I said "nice hand" to V with AA as I always do. I think it's important to respect everyone at the table and there's no need to create bad vibes.

Yeah that was why it came off more as an emotional response to personality differences to me when coupled with the other phrase I quoted because it lacked any information that justified the play or indicated that it actually informed it