You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!

Limping with JJ

Limping with jacks sometimes works...sometimes.

Nice spot here. 3 way all in on flop with only 1 out against me.
PlayerActionCardsAmountPotBalance
horne03Small blind 30.0030.005270.00
oynutterBig blind 60.0090.001470.00
 Your hole cards
  • J
  • J
   
Jam667Call 60.00150.003745.00
bet72offCall 60.00210.0013900.00
sillymidRaise 240.00450.005720.00
wafuFold    
horne03Fold    
oynutterFold    
Jam667Call 180.00630.003565.00
bet72offRaise 960.001590.0012940.00
sillymidCall 780.002370.004940.00
Jam667Call 780.003150.002785.00
Flop
  
  • A
  • J
  • 8
   
Jam667All-in 2785.005935.000.00
bet72offCall 2785.008720.0010155.00
sillymidAll-in 4940.0013660.000.00
bet72offCall 2155.0015815.008000.00
Jam667Show
  • A
  • K
   
bet72offShow
  • J
  • J
   
sillymidShow
  • A
  • J
   
Turn
  
  • 5
   
River
  
  • A
   
sillymidWinFull House, Aces and Jacks15815.00 15815.00

Oh well.
«1

Comments

  • edited May 2014
    I never limp JJ

    Good hand pre flop not so great post flop - unless can hit a set.....

    You was unlucky here but I still raise pre - maybe then we get rid of AJ pre if AK is agresssive too




  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    I never limp JJ Good hand pre flop not so great post flop - unless can hit a set..... You was unlucky here but I still raise pre - maybe then we get rid of AJ pre if AK is agresssive too
    Posted by Nuggy962
    I limp raised pre because it was reasonably likely I would get raised and to mix up my play. If anyone gets too aggressive I'm probably folding.

    Dan Harrington seems to advocate always raising JJ after a limper, but advocates a limp with AA,KK,QQ if a raise behind if fairly likely. He also advocates limping JJ in early position some of the time.
  • edited May 2014

    Over limp re-raise with JJ.....really?

  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    Over limp re-raise with JJ.....really?
    Posted by hhyftrftdr
    Brilliant ain't it :-)
  • edited May 2014

    If there are two limpers, then I happy to rasie pre-flop with AJ. Looking back, I didn't realise how big the limp/raise was at the time. Once I hit two pairs, then I am going to get it all in. OK I got lucky.

    Any thoughts on whether I should have called that limp/raise?

  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    If there are two limpers, then I happy to rasie pre-flop with AJ. Looking back, I didn't realise how big the limp/raise was at the time. Once I hit two pairs, then I am going to get it all in. OK I got lucky. Any thoughts on whether I should have called that limp/raise?
    Posted by sillymid
    hes turned his hand face up like a player whos been on holiday since 1999 and never played poker since, allways gonna have AJ crushed pre so its a pretty easy fold.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : I limp raised pre because it was reasonably likely I would get raised and to mix up my play. If anyone gets too aggressive I'm probably folding. Dan Harrington seems to advocate always raising JJ after a limper, but advocates a limp with AA,KK,QQ if a raise behind if fairly likely. He also advocates limping JJ in early position some of the time.
    Posted by bet72off
    When was the book written?
  • edited May 2014
    I hate limpers

    That pre flop re raise is just horrible, shouts out AA/KK to me gives ur hand strength away, you deserved to lose, just horrible viewing:)
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : When was the book written?
    Posted by Jac35
    2010.

    [Edit: correction: 2004]
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    I hate limpers That pre flop re raise is just horrible, shouts out AA/KK to me gives ur hand strength away, you deserved to lose, just horrible viewing:)
    Posted by alex1229
    It seemed to make sense given the amount of action at the table. I didn't think anyone was that strong. The original raise doesn't show much strength. Neither does the call. I want people to fold higher cards, so I don't care if my hand strength is given away. Well that's my logic; I don't understand why it's horrible.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : hes turned his hand face up like a player whos been on holiday since 1999 and never played poker since, allways gonna have AJ crushed pre so its a pretty easy fold.
    Posted by THEROCK573
    I don't understand how it turns my hand face up, because the play can always be balanced. In fact I am very rarely doing this with JJ, and I am doing it to represent a stronger hand. If I was sure I would get folds, then I could make the play with even weaker hands. But I would only want to do that against players like you who are capable of folding.

    I admit I am representing strength. Is there something wrong with that? Is that what I missed when I was on holiday, that I shouldn't make big bets any more? What have I missed since 1999?
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : I don't understand how it turns my hand face up, because the play can always be balanced. In fact I am very rarely doing this with JJ, and I am doing it to represent a stronger hand. If I was sure I would get folds, then I could make the play with even weaker hands. But I would only want to do that against players like you who are capable of folding. I admit I am representing strength. Is there something wrong with that? Is that what I missed when I was on holiday, that I shouldn't make big bets any more? What have I missed since 1999?
    Posted by bet72off
    You have JJ, you don't need to rep strength when you have one of the strongest starting hands going. When you over limp re-raise with them, you are pretty much folding out any airballs and a load of cards that are in bad shape vs JJ, and getting action from hands that have JJ in average or really poor shape.

    Your logic seems flawed from what I've seen you post, if I'm being honest.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : It seemed to make sense given the amount of action at the table. I didn't think anyone was that strong. The original raise doesn't show much strength. Neither does the call. I want people to fold higher cards, so I don't care if my hand strength is given away. Well that's my logic; I don't understand why it's horrible.
    Posted by bet72off
    So you only want action from QQ+ when we have JJ yeah? How doesn't the original raiser show strength? They've raised 2 limpers....

    In the space of 2 moves, you've gone from one end of the spectrum to the other; overlimp with JJ which is quite weak, followed by r/r which is very strong, turns our hand somewhat face up and probably means we are overvaluing our hand now. As when we make this move, as I said above, generally we are folding out everything we beat, and getting action exclusively from hands that fare pretty well vs JJ.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : I don't understand how it turns my hand face up, because the play can always be balanced. In fact I am very rarely doing this with JJ, and I am doing it to represent a stronger hand. If I was sure I would get folds, then I could make the play with even weaker hands. But I would only want to do that against players like you who are capable of folding. I admit I am representing strength. Is there something wrong with that? Is that what I missed when I was on holiday, that I shouldn't make big bets any more? What have I missed since 1999?
    Posted by bet72off
    hhyftrftdr has hit the nail on the head with his reply, it actually tilts me how bad this play is in general but if you think its fine then thats up to you each to there own.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : So you only want action from QQ+ when we have JJ yeah? How doesn't the original raiser show strength? They've raised 2 limpers.... In the space of 2 moves, you've gone from one end of the spectrum to the other; overlimp with JJ which is quite weak, followed by r/r which is very strong, turns our hand somewhat face up and probably means we are overvaluing our hand now. As when we make this move, as I said above, generally we are folding out everything we beat, and getting action exclusively from hands that fare pretty well vs JJ.
    Posted by hhyftrftdr
    The original raiser was raising limpers a lot, so I didn't think the play is that strong. There was a lot of postflop action in general on the table, so I figured I wouldn't only get action from QQ+. If someone does have QQ+, then I am hoping for a reraise, at which point I fold.

    I think however I am up against a lot of overcards, that I want to fold out.  I think my play makes my hand easier to play post-flop. If I am up against overcards, then continuing on the flop when no overs come make my play more correct. I also want the overcards to fold as they have good equity against me. If I play against an airball hand, and there are overcards on the flop, how do I tell if my hand is good? I would rather take the pot now.

    Is that my mistake? Should I be braver and see a flop and be prepared to just find out where I am from the betting?

    Yes, I have gone from under to over representing my hand. What is wrong with misrepresenting my hand? Surely my profit comes from players playing incorrectly against me, which is much more likely if my hand is misrepresented.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : hhyftrftdr  has hit the nail on the head with his reply, it actually tilts me how bad this play is in general but if you think its fine then thats up to you each to there own.
    Posted by THEROCK573

    The assertion was that the play would only get action from QQ+, but that clearly was not the case in this instance.

    I think it depends on the table. I am used to playing freerolls and very low buy-in tournaments, and I seem to do OK in those. I have a lot of trouble bigger tournaments and maybe I am not just not adjusting for those. I am used to playing players as bad as myself.

    If my A-game tilts you then you should stay away from me at the tables for your own safety. I often play much worse...
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : The assertion was that the play would only get action from QQ+, but that clearly was not the case in this instance. I think it depends on the table. I am used to playing freerolls and very low buy-in tournaments, and I seem to do OK in those. I have a lot of trouble bigger tournaments and maybe I am not just not adjusting for those. I am used to playing players as bad as myself. If my A-game tilts you then you should stay away from me at the tables for your own safety. I often play much worse...
    Posted by bet72off
    wouldnt tilt my play at the table against you, i see this sort of stuff all the time, i just look and the hand and want to vomit its that bad. you obviously think its fine cos uve read a book published 8 years ago thats says it is. ok fine i have nothing more to say then, u play whats most profitable for u and il play how its most profitable form me!!!
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : The original raiser was raising limpers a lot, so I didn't think the play is that strong. There was a lot of postflop action in general on the table, so I figured I wouldn't only get action from QQ+. If someone does have QQ+, then I am hoping for a reraise, at which point I fold. I think however I am up against a lot of overcards, that I want to fold out.  I think my play makes my hand easier to play post-flop. If I am up against overcards, then continuing on the flop when no overs come make my play more correct. I also want the overcards to fold as they have good equity against me. If I play against an airball hand, and there are overcards on the flop, how do I tell if my hand is good? I would rather take the pot now. Is that my mistake? Should I be braver and see a flop and be prepared to just find out where I am from the betting? Yes, I have gone from under to over representing my hand. What is wrong with misrepresenting my hand? Surely my profit comes from players playing incorrectly against me, which is much more likely if my hand is misrepresented.
    Posted by bet72off
    I can only deduce from all this that you're uncomfortable playing mid-high PP's post flop, probably even more so out of position.

    Just because we have JJ on a Kxx board doesn't mean we have to meekly check fold, equally just because we have JJ on a 2 3 9 board doesn't mean we have to get every single chip in. We should be looking at our opponents, their image and range, our perceived image and range, bet sizing, any reads/history....put it all in a big thought process melting pot, and that should allow us to make logical decisions when facing a key hand. Sometimes we'll get it wrong. Of course there will be times when we pay them off, or get bluffed off the best hand. But this is normal, it's poker. As long as we make more correct decisions over time than 'incorrect' play, we should reap the rewards.

    In this hand, we don't know that the original raiser has been iso raising limpers a lot. Fair enough. If anything, this would generally encourage me to keep up the sneaky play with JJ. Because when we then re-raise, as I've said before but can't stress enough, we fold out all their marginal hands, pretty much every pocket pair below JJ, some random junk etc etc.....so that means we generally (not always gonna be the case of course, but thinking long term....) are getting action from hands that crush us or have very good equity. So now we're playing a bloated pot, out of position, vs 2 people, both of which have very narrowed ranges that are usually gonna be in ok to great shape vs JJ.

    I think you're final point is way off. With this play, you are making it easier for people to play against you...ie people will make less mistakes vs you when you do this. You are narrowing your range right down, so someone trying to pinch with 78s can make an easy fold, someone iso raising with 99 can make an easy fold. Someone iso raising with KK however is not gonna be scared off, and thus this is where you get the action, from a hand that crushes us.

    I genuinely wish you well.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : I can only deduce from all this that you're uncomfortable playing mid-high PP's post flop, probably even more so out of position. Just because we have JJ on a Kxx board doesn't mean we have to meekly check fold, equally just because we have JJ on a 2 3 9 board doesn't mean we have to get every single chip in. We should be looking at our opponents, their image and range, our perceived image and range, bet sizing, any reads/history....put it all in a big thought process melting pot, and that should allow us to make logical decisions when facing a key hand. Sometimes we'll get it wrong. Of course there will be times when we pay them off, or get bluffed off the best hand. But this is normal, it's poker. As long as we make more correct decisions over time than 'incorrect' play, we should reap the rewards. In this hand, we don't know that the original raiser has been iso raising limpers a lot. Fair enough. If anything, this would generally encourage me to keep up the sneaky play with JJ. Because when we then re-raise, as I've said before but can't stress enough, we fold out all their marginal hands, pretty much every pocket pair below JJ, some random junk etc etc.....so that means we generally (not always gonna be the case of course, but thinking long term....) are getting action from hands that crush us or have very good equity. So now we're playing a bloated pot, out of position, vs 2 people, both of which have very narrowed ranges that are usually gonna be in ok to great shape vs JJ. I think you're final point is way off. With this play, you are making it easier for people to play against you...ie people will make less mistakes vs you when you do this. You are narrowing your range right down, so someone trying to pinch with 78s can make an easy fold, someone iso raising with 99 can make an easy fold. Someone iso raising with KK however is not gonna be scared off, and thus this is where you get the action, from a hand that crushes us. I genuinely wish you well.
    Posted by hhyftrftdr
    Thanks for taking the time to explain.

    I was partly doing this because I thought there was far too much calling going on, but I take the point that I could still be folding out weaker hands that I am crushing.

    I do think that in the games I am used to, reraises are not respected enough, so can be done for value a lot more often. This is maybe where I need to make more adjustments for more sensible games.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : wouldnt tilt my play at the table against you, i see this sort of stuff all the time, i just look and the hand and want to vomit its that bad. you obviously think its fine cos uve read a book published 8 years ago thats says it is. ok fine i have nothing more to say then, u play whats most profitable for u and il play how its most profitable form me!!!
    Posted by THEROCK573
    No, the book didn't say it was fine. It said it was OK with QQ+ if a raise behind was fairly likely.

    I think what is profitable for me, wouldn't work for you because you play at different stakes. It doesn't work for me when I move up, so I am interested in your opinions.

    Here's an example. First hand of tournament: UTG goes all-in, UTG+1 calls. You are next to act and have 88. I would think about calling here on the basis they might have only 2 overcards between them or less. The play might be dubious for me, but would be terrible for you.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : No, the book didn't say it was fine. It said it was OK with QQ+ if a raise behind was fairly likely. I think what is profitable for me, wouldn't work for you because you play at different stakes. It doesn't work for me when I move up, so I am interested in your opinions. Here's an example. First hand of tournament: UTG goes all-in, UTG+1 calls. You are next to act and have 88. I would think about calling here on the basis they might have only 2 overcards between them or less. The play might be dubious for me, but would be terrible for you.
    Posted by bet72off
    If you wanna move up, find that fold button ;)

    Good luck, run well!
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : No, the book didn't say it was fine. It said it was OK with QQ+ if a raise behind was fairly likely. I think what is profitable for me, wouldn't work for you because you play at different stakes. It doesn't work for me when I move up, so I am interested in your opinions. Here's an example. First hand of tournament: UTG goes all-in, UTG+1 calls. You are next to act and have 88. I would think about calling here on the basis they might have only 2 overcards between them or less. The play might be dubious for me, but would be terrible for you.
    Posted by bet72off
    if its first hand in a tournament and UTG AND UTG+1 have all there chips in the middle then its probably the easiest fold you will ever have to make, if you're lucky you will be flipping against one and the other will have you crushed.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : if its first hand in a tournament and UTG AND UTG+1 have all there chips in the middle then its probably the easiest fold you will ever have to make, if you're lucky you will be flipping against one and the other will have you crushed.
    Posted by THEROCK573
    Well I don't think it's necessarily right to call, but not as wrong for me as it is for you. I have been in this spot and called:neither of my opponents had a pair or an overcard.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : Well I don't think it's necessarily right to call, but not as wrong for me as it is for you. I have been in this spot and called:neither of my opponents had a pair or an overcard.
    Posted by bet72off
    Think you need to look at the game with a longer perspective. Ok, one time we called and somehow weren't in bad shape. This simply doesn't make it the correct call. It means we were very fortunate on this one occasion to get it in ahead. If it's wrong to call with 88, then it's wrong to call, regardless of whether its me, you, rocky, Julian Thew, whoever, holding the 88. It goes out of the window; a poor call is a poor call, however you wanna try and dress it up. A poor call in a £1 mtt is also a poor call in the £110 super roller.

    Obviously the skill level varies massively in poker and depending on the stakes you play. But the fundamentals remain the same. 88 will be in awful shape waaaaaayy more often than in ok shape, in this exact scenario. It seems you're trying to justify certain plays, and have just a single example to back it up.....like I said at the start, look long term and try and do play/moves that will be +EV over time.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : Think you need to look at the game with a longer perspective. Ok, one time we called and somehow weren't in bad shape. This simply doesn't make it the correct call. It means we were very fortunate on this one occasion to get it in ahead. If it's wrong to call with 88, then it's wrong to call, regardless of whether its me, you, rocky, Julian Thew, whoever, holding the 88. It goes out of the window; a poor call is a poor call, however you wanna try and dress it up. A poor call in a £1 mtt is also a poor call in the £110 super roller. Obviously the skill level varies massively in poker and depending on the stakes you play. But the fundamentals remain the same. 88 will be in awful shape waaaaaayy more often than in ok shape, in this exact scenario. It seems you're trying to justify certain plays, and have just a single example to back it up.....like I said at the start, look long term and try and do play/moves that will be +EV over time.
    Posted by hhyftrftdr
    I think you are way off here. People's ranges are completely different. Calling with 88 here may still be bad, but it's close. JJ here is profitable in the right tourneys. The people pushing often do it with random cards, and the people calling are often calling with Ax. Often you are 50% or better to triple up. This is just not going to be the case in a super roller. There is no one right way to play. It depends on your opponents. It may be possible to play a game that works at any stakes, but it certainly won't be the most profitable.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : I think you are way off here. People's ranges are completely different. Calling with 88 here may still be bad, but it's close. JJ here is profitable in the right tourneys. The people pushing often do it with random cards, and the people calling are often calling with Ax. Often you are 50% or better to triple up. This is just not going to be the case in a super roller. There is no one right way to play. It depends on your opponents. It may be possible to play a game that works at any stakes, but it certainly won't be the most profitable.
    Posted by bet72off
    A poor call with 88 to two all ins in a £1 MTT is also a poor call with 88 in the exact scenario in a £110 super roller. I don't think JJ is a profitable call long term either.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : A poor call with 88 to two all ins in a £1 MTT is also a poor call with 88 in the exact scenario in a £110 super roller. I don't think JJ is a profitable call long term either.
    Posted by hhyftrftdr
    How about QQ?
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : How about QQ?
    Posted by bet72off
    QQ is a close one either way. KK is a no brainer, JJ is a fold, and QQ sits somewhere in the middle ;)
  • edited May 2014
    Hate to do this but going to disagree with hh + TheRock here. There are some flaws in bet72off's thinking but he's thinking along the right lines. At the low levels, there are people that will aggressively steal with a wide range and then call huge 3-bets. They might have any suited ace, small pairs, suited connectors/1-2gappers and any 2 high cards. We are not (as hh said narrowing down their range to QQ+ and AK/AQ) In that case, our aim is to get as much money in as possible with JJ when we are ahead. We are treating JJ like the nuts because that what is is against these players; with 65-70% equity pre-flop against their range. Also, they are not thinking about our hand or our range - but even if they were and we 'give away our hand strength' so to speak, that doesn't matter if they are putting in 1/3 of their stack pre. 

    Also ofc different tournaments make a difference in the range we are getting it in with. In a Super Roller it would be a disaster getting it all in pre-flop with 88. In a free-roll or micro stakes tournament where you get some players shipping a super wide range (40%) and others calling with a slightly less wide range (20%) then getting it in with 88  3 way is no longer a disaster. We have 37.36% equity and need 33% to be BE. ofc it's still probably going to be a mistake because there will be better oppertunites to get it in with better ev. And JJ becomes a super easy call where we have close to 50% equity and a chance to treble up. Were it the super roller though and we were against even quite loose (but still fairly tight) ranges of JJ+, AK and QQ+, AK then we only have 25% equity and calling with JJ becomes a massive mistake.

    Poker against v good regs is all about being balanced an unexploitable. Against avg-bad regs balance and being unexploitable is still important but exploiting our opponent becomes important too. And against fish it's all about maximally exploiting their bad tendencies and balance becomes a lot less important. Too many regs I find are guilty of not maximising their profit against fish because they take standard lines as opposed to lines which try and exploit their opponent.
  • edited May 2014
    In Response to Re: Limping with JJ:
    Hate to do this but going to disagree with hh + TheRock here. There are some flaws in bet72off's thinking but he's thinking along the right lines. At the low levels, there are people that will aggressively steal with a wide range and then call huge 3-bets. They might have any suited ace, small pairs, suited connectors/1-2gappers and any 2 high cards. We are not (as hh said narrowing down their range to QQ+ and AK/AQ) In that case, our aim is to get as much money in as possible with JJ when we are ahead. We are treating JJ like the nuts because that what is is against these players; with 65-70% equity pre-flop against their range. Also, they are not thinking about our hand or our range - but even if they were and we 'give away our hand strength' so to speak, that doesn't matter if they are putting in 1/3 of their stack pre.  Also ofc different tournaments make a difference in the range we are getting it in with. In a Super Roller it would be a disaster getting it all in pre-flop with 88. In a free-roll or micro stakes tournament where you get some players shipping a super wide range (40%) and others calling with a slightly less wide range (20%) then getting it in with 88  3 way is no longer a disaster. We have 37.36% equity and need 33% to be BE. ofc it's still probably going to be a mistake because there will be better oppertunites to get it in with better ev. And JJ becomes a super easy call where we have close to 50% equity and a chance to treble up. Were it the super roller though and we were against even quite loose (but still fairly tight) ranges of JJ+, AK and QQ+, AK then we only have 25% equity and calling with JJ becomes a massive mistake. Poker against v good regs is all about being balanced an unexploitable. Against avg-bad regs balance and being unexploitable is still important but exploiting our opponent becomes important too. And against fish it's all about maximally exploiting their bad tendencies and balance becomes a lot less important. Too many regs I find are guilty of not maximising their profit against fish because they take standard lines as opposed to lines which try and exploit their opponent.
    Posted by F_Ivanovic
    but look at this hand though, its just plain ugly, utg limps and he then limps behind hoping someone will raise, what if they all decide they wanna limp in behind now cos 2 people have done it and u end up going 5 way to the flop, unless hes some post flop genious he wont have a clue were he is unless he flops a set like he did this time, hes lucky 2 people had genuine hands behind. call me old fashioned but doing you're own betting has allways worked just fine for me
Sign In or Register to comment.