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!
Defying conventional wisdom - limping in pre
What usually happens on internet forums is that anyone who goes against the grain gets slagged off. So here goes...
Of course I know what most people say - you should never limp. By the way, this is not a view shared by WSOP champion Dan Harrington, but nonetheless it's become standard thinking and the game has moved on since Dan's era.
But what exactly is wrong with limping in certain situations?
You're on the button with 44 - you could raise to win the blinds - big deal. Or you could limp, entice others in and potentially win their entire stack in a fit-or-fold situation.
The other argument is that by raising you 'take control' of the pot - take control of what exactly? An opportunity to make a c-bet into 3 overcards? Doesn't sound overly controlling to me.
I think that playing against the grain, against conventional norms, is going to be the way to go in the future. Everyone nowadays knows the standard way to play, someone will do a Fosbury flop and completely change the game, but this won't happen by following the herd.
Of course I know what most people say - you should never limp. By the way, this is not a view shared by WSOP champion Dan Harrington, but nonetheless it's become standard thinking and the game has moved on since Dan's era.
But what exactly is wrong with limping in certain situations?
You're on the button with 44 - you could raise to win the blinds - big deal. Or you could limp, entice others in and potentially win their entire stack in a fit-or-fold situation.
The other argument is that by raising you 'take control' of the pot - take control of what exactly? An opportunity to make a c-bet into 3 overcards? Doesn't sound overly controlling to me.
I think that playing against the grain, against conventional norms, is going to be the way to go in the future. Everyone nowadays knows the standard way to play, someone will do a Fosbury flop and completely change the game, but this won't happen by following the herd.
Comments
Unlikely limping is going to be the new strong play, any thinking player is going to exploit you to bits
I agree with what you say (in part), have answered directly to a couple of bits, but mainly relating to the specific hand type you mention.
Poker trends are cicular in nature, always have been. People are shee-ple. Watch any ME from 2006 back and you will see that for the main part the standard of play is HORRIFIC.
Where, in the past, trends have indeed been cicular, we have something else entirely now. The modern era of online poker has pulled the game apart so much and into such micromanagment, that the standard of play (in the main) has improved drastically.
I totally agree that in some spots we do have to go against the grain to acheive a desired result. But going against the grain in those specific spots (if you truly know what you are doing) is a result of the greater technical aptitude of the poker world, rather than people stepping outside of conventional lines imo. It is just another gear within a persons overall game, that works alongside all the rest.
The thinking is that if you're 100 BB deep, then limping to potentially take down 100 BB could be an option. Raising to win 1.5BB or limping to potentially win 100? The odds aren't good of hitting the set, but do the sums stack up? I don't know, but it's surely worth asking the question.
If we make our pf betsize right, we will likely be called in any case.
A) Winning pots uncontested
C) stack opponent easier with inflated pot.
D) Make our set when called by typical junk from the blinds (the player type that goes broke light in a limped pot is same player type that calls with junk
E) Gives opponent something to shhot at with inflated pot size
F) Flop bet + turn cbet is going to be more difficult for decent players to station uber light, rather than scaled down c-bet
G)
H)
I)
J)
K)
(will edit in later when i get home :P)
1. Its hard to balance a limping range, and keep limping more profitable than raising with that range
2. Its much harder to get people to stack off in limped pots when we do hit big
3. We have to play fit or fold too much
4. I find it much harder to handread in limped pots
5. With marginal hands stealing the blinds and winning 1.5BB or sometimes more if we get called and take it down postflop is a good result
But I wont................
The 80s are coming back! Now where did I keep my flares....
I could type dozens of pages on how dumb it is.
Interesting thread.
just about sums it up
Will put my head on the block and say I have one too. Caught a bit of James Hartigan discussing this overall theme T'other night, including Greensteins suspect BR advice, as well as someone saying "Range Merging is a simple justication for every time someone spews off"
Mine surrounds Betting for Information, I do expect to be hounded for this.
I am not adverse, in specific deep spots, of betting for info. In vast mojority of hands I know why I am betting or checking, what my intents are facing certain actions.
When we stone cold bluff we are have a purpose. But we are, in part, betting for info, info being can opponent call us.
When we probe, we are looking for info.
When we block bet, we are looking for info in part.
Betting for info solely is bad in majority of spots.
Poker is a game of information, with every bet and call we accumulate information on opponents tendancies and ranges.
I think sometimes people repeat "Betting for info is bad" by wrote.
All am saying imo, is its not always wrong, if we know exactly why we are doing it.
Attack comence
saying that....
c/c never feels good either when your behind
In the Poker Clinic on 865 tonight, Redmond Lee (who knows what he's talking about) made the case for the limp. The hand example he gave was 66, UTG, to avoid a re-raise. Redmond admitted that it was a special situation and generally limping was not a positive play.
James Hartigan (who generally doesn't know what he's talking about: his advice is 'shove or fold') argued against Redmond that the limp was a bad play. Well, whose advice would you take?
It's nice to know that I'm not alone! If the Oracle that is Redmond Lee thinks that on special occasions the limp could be the correct play, I don't feel so lonely in my opinions.
But limping utg with pp is totally different to limping in on the button.
GTB tho I think limping in in early seats with PPs is burning chips