I know, I know...there's already like a million Harrington on Cash Games threads. As long as each thread has a specific focus (which is debatable), then IMHO, more threads = better. Reading meta-threads is like navigating a mine-field. I'd rather see a bunch of HOC threads, as long as each is discussing a specific idea or concept. With that in mind, let's talk about open-limping.

HOC, Vol. 1 discusses it briefly in the Introduction (pg. 7) and more thoroughly in Part Three, in the section titled: Raising, Limping, and the Deception Principle (pgs. 133-135.)

In a nutshell, he recommends open-limping as a viable weapon in one's arsenal, and I have always agreed with that viewpoint. This gives me mixed emotions. On the one hand, I'm glad the foremost poker author of this decade agrees with me. On the other, I hate the fact some jackholes who espouse nonsense like: "NEVER open-limp," and "Open-limping is a HUGE leak," might actually realize the garbage coming out of their mouths is just that: garbage.

Those players claim that open-limping leaves money on the table. I would argue that you're leaving money on the table if you aren't open limping. Harrington uses a perfect phrase for this money you "lose" by limping: "theoretical pennies." I loved that.

Action Dan lists a few reasons why open-limping should be "an extra weapon in your quiver":

• Lets you see more flops cheaply
• Allows you to disguise some big hands
• Favors good post-flop play
• Encourages players to get involved

He also makes very clear when limping is not viable, such as:

• You're weak post-flop
• You're overmatched
• The table is very aggressive with lots of pre-flop raising

Open-limping is always a hot button issue, so it should be interesting to see how people react to this.

Any body who knows how to playlive NL cash well is well aware that open-limping is probably the strongest play that there is.

It allows you to see more flops and outplay your oppoents.

All depending on game texture, but it's my favorite play in the low stakes games I play where no one can through away 2nd pair.

You just need to be able to lay hands down to make this a successful strategy.

I don't know about "strongest play that there is," but it should certainly be a play that everyone uses at least some of the time.

I certainly don't see open-limping as that big a deal in FR play, particularly live, and I don't suppose most players worth asking would either. I assume that's what he's referring to.

Did this issue come up in regards to 6-max play at all, particularly online? If so that will generate some serious criticism. The breed of top online short-handed players (Caby, etc.) have made a pretty strong argument for not open-limping. 6-max is generally where I hear the "don't limp" mantra.

I like to do it in 1/2 live games with hands like KJs or ATo in EP. I might even limp/fold. In a 1/2 live game, no TAG will raise ever time he has the button to punish limpers. And no one ever folded a flush or bottom 2 pair for 150BBs...

Hmmmmm, I'd be interested to get Stoxtrader's, Leatherass's, Hunter Bicks, Kyle Hendon's, Taylor Caby's etc etc etc etc take on this. I know they all advocate NEVER open limping as far as 6 max/ short tables go so I wonder what they would have to say as far as full ring is concerned.

The important factors the factors the OP never mentions, (I haven't read HOC so this comment is about the OP, not the book) are WHY and HOW OFTEN. If you never open limp, it is a mistake and if you open limp too often or for the wrong reason, that is also a mistake. Open limping adds balance to your game and makes you harder to read.

Limp-minraising is a viable weapon too, but...

Harrington famously varies his tourney pf betsizing so we know he uses all his options and favours levelling. Generally that isn't wise online.

I was hugely relieved to see that Harrington advocates a lot of moves and strategies that I've thought were appropriate for the games I play yet many 2+2ers claim are weak. In fact, I'll admit that I was starting to abandon some of these due to pressure from external forces causing me to question my various theses with these moves/strategies.

As for open-limping, I like it a lot in soft games where the stacks are deep and there's not much of a threat that my limp will be raised. Am I giving up some EV by not raising? Sure, but I trade that for a lot more EV in that:

1) I want to preserve the status quo and keep the fish limping which makes me reluctant to get the table started in the habit of raising preflop (fishy tables sometimes have a herd mentality); and,

2) I get to see a lot of flops cheaply which is a huge edge in soft games where I can outplay many of the villains after the flop.

A purposeful -EV play can be well worth the slight loss when it sets up a strong +EV state afterward. See NLHTAP's "Trading Mistakes" section.

I'll also open-limp in tough games, but only occasionally and do it primarily as a deceptive play to show villains that an open-limp doesn't always mean weakness on my part.

How can combining open-limping and raising make you harder to read than raising 100% of the time?

can i ask one question? and bear in mind i haven't read the book yet and don't really have an opinion on the idea (other than i like the limp-reraise, although i think that is NOT what he's talking about)

would people's reaction be any different if it wasn't dan harrington giving this advice? i.e. if it was some self-proclaimed winner in the beginners forum wanting to share his wisdom with the masses. would that poster be mocked as a fish/donkey/etc.?

let's just make sure we aren't judging this purely on DH saying it. and don't get me wrong, that has some merit by itself.

Quote:
"let's just make sure we aren't judging this purely on DH saying it. and don't get me wrong, that has some merit by itself."

I'm pretty sure there's almost always more than one winning strategy to beat any particular table. I am highly suspect of anyone who professes to know "the" best strategy for a given situation.

jason, i was happy to see that you liked the strategy and that it confirmed what you thought and hadn't seen suggested anywhere else (or seldom). and that post was before my post. my comment was more a very general comment and didn't relate to anyone's earlier comments. in fact i would be thinking it without any prior comments.

and of course, the games constantly evolve so your strategy has to change.

On the 3/19 ESPN poker cast Kirk Morrison told Phil Gordon he now limps in any deep stack situaiton. Phil was very surprised that this approach was being used by such a successful player. Kirk says current players make more mistakes post flop that he can take advantage of.

Kirk is an interesting person with unique perspective on how tournament poker has changed since the late 90's.

Phil is a huge opponent of limping, although he does concede in LGB that his own strategy is not necessarily the only winning one or even the best.

on the poker cast dan harrington said his two new books were mostly related to full ring game play not 6 handed. im pretty sure he said he would look into doing a 6 handed strategy series in the future.fr/sh obv two entirely different animals.

DH doesn't specifically mention the game type, at least not in the pages where he discusses OL. The book is generally more for FR than for 6-max, and he does allude to the fact that OL should be done more frequently from EP than from LP, which implies that you should do it more often at FR than 6-max.

I'm pretty sure the reasons I listed in my OP constitute the WHY. As for HOW OFTEN, that depends on the table. If the table is loose-passive pre-flop, I'm much more prone to limp, especially since I'm generally going to OL more often from EP. Might as well keep the pre-flop pot small by OL if 2-3 people behind are usually calling a 3x or 4x raise. If people in LP are constantly raising the limpers, then, like I said in my OP, OL is not a viable strategy.

The hands you're OL with should usually be small-mid pairs and SC. You just need to OL with big pairs often enough so that your opponents know you're capable of it. That's the main point that DH drives home again and again: vary and balance your plays so that any play at anytime could mean anything.

This is kind of what I was alluding to in my OP. It's easy to ignore it when DonkFish123 posts in the beginners forum about the merits of open-limping, complete with poor grammar and punctuation. It's a little tougher when it comes from a well respected pro and poker author. Everyone should keep an open mind on these things.

Like JasonInDallas says, there is more than one way to win at poker. My jabs at the "never open-limp" crowd was more playful teasing than anything else. If you prefer always raising when you're first in and it works for you, then by all my means, stick with it. As for me, someone who plays more live games and FR than online or 6-max, I open limp quite often (in relation to most) and will continue to do so.

i didn't mean to come down on anyone with my comment. my thought was that we should be more open-minded to unknowns telling us "hey, this is really working for me" and NOT have to wait until dan tells us (although dan has miles more credibility than you and i)

One thing to bear in mind. I am pretty sure Harrington is not advocating a lot of open limping at 6max online (while there are times to do so). Second, Harrington is writing about 100-200xBB stacks and higher. I doubt he advocates much open limping, even in live, full ring games, with 60xBB stack.

I absolutely agree with you. That's what I meant when I said we should all be open-minded on these things. It's just harder to separate the wheat from the chaff on an internet message board, unless you know who the poster is. Just speaking for myself, I know I've made some dumb, ignorant posts where I was giving advice I had no business giving. I had no idea what I was saying, I just wanted to post something. That's why my post count and frequency are not very high.

I think in full ring open limping is perfectly acceptable and sometimes best especially from EP. IN 6 max I also think that while there is a high correlation between someone open limping and them being a poor player, I do think there is some room to do so. I still haven't put open limping into play a whole lot, but I do it a time or two a day and there is nothing wrong with it imo.

The biggest single reason to open limp with just about any good hand is if there are weak tight players in the blinds who will fold your raise but may lose something significant if they are allowed to see the flop.

I'm not quite sure I hardly ever encounter a player (online at least) who folds too much preflop, but then goes to showdown or "loses something significant" with weakish hands postflop. If this guy is prevalent in a live setting then that I can't comment about, but certainly this type of player doesn't really exist online imo. If I find a player that goes broke with weakish hands he generally has a very high VPIP as well. And if that's the case it is clearly best to raise hands with high implied odds as well as your premiums so that way when they call down 3 streets you get their whole stack as opposed to a fraction of it.

Hm... wow. I always am doing it to not stunt my implied odds against bad loose players. I guess that's a reason but not as big of a reason because they are likely to call anyways.

You've described perhaps half to a third of B&M players I encounter at the 2-5 level and below. These guys will stack off on the turn with TP often.