raising limp

N86xps · raising limp

Hello guys! Maybe my question is very simple and naive. But it is just a thought.

I know, that raising a limper decreases positional disadvantage (they say NEGATES.. but we still act first on every street...). So, it is profitable. But is it SO simple?

What does it mean to have a smaller disadvantage? To me it looks like the average mistake we make is smaller COMPARED to the pot. But the pot is actually bigger! How do we weigh these factors? Of course there is also some dead money if button folds. But is it so bad to take a free flop? It seems like there is no simple answer. I suppose it will largely depend on the opponent...

Since it is my first post on this forum do not criticize me too much:).

Brokerstar

Hey man and welcome to the site. Mate there is no such thing as a silly question and you've come to place where no one should make you feel silly for something you haven't learnt yet.

With regards to raising limps I think you have to know the kind of villain you're up against to then determine the best course of action.

It's not a case of raise any two cards because it helps you post flop, that is too simplified. Instead you need to think is my opponent the kind of player that limp/ calls? how does he play post flop? is he then fit or fold or a massive station or perhaps he floats c bets a lot and takes pots away on turns? Perhaps he limp/ folds a lot pre flop?

Depending on how your opponent plays as in every poker situaion should change how and with what cards you decide to play.

Like if he's a real station then you punish his limp with value hands if he limp/ folds then you can do it with a much weaker range. If he calls loose and then likes to float and take pots away then do it for value, c bet with a hand then check turn to induce the bluff.

So to answer your question it's much as I started there is a bigger picture to think about not just a simple punishing limps is good.

Many players have punished my limps just to then have their ass handed to them because they never adjusted to me they just auto punished 100%.

N86xps

Thank you Brokerstar! Very good simple, yet real life examples. So, when someone raises your limp, he sets himself to make a more costly mistake:). So, is it the case, that this "negating" of positional advantage is just a side effect of raising? Yet it is often overused and misapplied?

What would you do if you don't have enough postflop reads? Is it good enough to think of it from Value/Bluff perspective and if you cannot justify it, then just check behind?

chesslw

Brokerstar

N86xps

Thank you. Your range that you pointed out in brackets I know it is just an example, but it kinda looks tighter than a typical default calling range. Is there a reason to this?

I just had anothe thought: there must be some connnection between limpraising and donk betting limped pot. Could one think of donking as of delayed raise?

I suppose that one could start of raising nearly 100% of limped pots and then adjust to the opponent. I suppose one could also choose to check MOST hands behind yet donk bet ALMOST 100% of flops and then adjust... But it does not seem possible to do both:).. Or does it? Any thoughts?

chesslw

It is tighter since it's a value range (i.e. depolarised pure value hands- no bluffs)- you are raising for value looking to extract from worse hands.

You sometimes hear people talk about a polarised range which is made up of bluffs and very strong hands- this is mathematically better against someone who doesn't call a lot and either raises or folds (just think about how to maximize the equity of all of your hands as a whole range).

I wouldn't worry too much about these things at all. In fact to beat low stakes HUSNGs all you need to do is fact find in the beginning, and there would be huge gaping wholes for you to exploit, and you can adapt your game plan accordingly (very rarely do you encounter another thinking player).

I would advise against raising 100% of limps at the start as you are just building a pot with marginal hands oop (of course actually this would work against brokerstar- since he is fact finding with his limps at the start).

Don't over complicate things and just keep it simple. It sounds like you are trying to solve the game Laughing

You want a nice low variance strategy to beat the fishes.

N86xps

You are right:). Trying to solve:).

I understand, that all this is too complicated and unnecessary for beating the fish. But, while building my bankroll, beating the fish I am trying to learn to play poker, NOT to beat the fish:).

Still, if you can call with 44 OOP why can't you raise a limp with that? You need a better hand to call a raise than to raise in the first place. It should apply here as well, shouldn't it?

I just thought, that there is some good side effect to using your range. If I played against you, I would assume, that your raising range IS polarized:). So I would have to call you more with mediocre hands... that is what you want:).

ChrisB

because 44 plays like crap in a limped pot. You need a ridiculously good flop like 4xx or 235 or something before you can bomb it.

The people who limp typically also never fold a piece, so I think in general you just set yourself up to get owned by wasting additional chips that won't be utilized anyway.

N86xps

I see. Thanks. But what makes a call with 44 profitable? You cannot play fit or fold with that! Yet you can not fold it preflop.. sorry. This is really a simple question:)

ChrisB

Calling with 44 may not be profitable. Assuming the stacks are deep enough you can flop a set which is a very disguised hand that is good to win stacks and tournaments Smile

If you get down to say 15-25bb its better just to 3bet jam 44 or fold it.

chesslw

I'm afraid that is the power of position.

If you want to be technical- it is NOT mathematically correct that you "have to" call a raise with a better hand than to raise with. That is only true if you are playing jam/fold or a game where you check down to the river postflop. The power of position allows you to call with many marginal hands (think about calling with pocket pairs to set mine and maybe 89s against a tight utg range- both plays are +EV so are better than folding), especially with deeper stacks. Theoretically, if you are to solve the game, then when you play with e.g. 1,000bb, then arguably you have to call with 27s just to be able to represent the nuts on a 227 board.

Continuing on... when you call oop with 44, you do it since it is more +EV than folding. But if button limps, unless you have a huge edge postflop, checking is probably more +EV than raising. Fundamentally, every poker decision is taken because it is the most +EV decision.

At awkward stacksizes (25-35bb) it is hard to play small pocket pairs oop for everyone.

chesslw

I agree with Chris- it may be that it is unprofitable to play small pocket pairs oop- then it is better to just fold it preflop in that situation.

Also about my previous post- I was meant to explain that if given the option of calling or folding with a hand- calling is better, it doesn't mean that given the same situation when you can check or raise, then raising is better. I think I got slightly confused as to what I was trying to explain Smile

N86xps

If one had to play pocket PPs ONLY to set mine he stacks must be really huge. At pokerstrategy.com they give a "rule of 20", that is: effective stacks must be 20 times bigger than the initial raise. It appears to me, that 20 is not enough. this rule is based on a fact, that you flop a set 12% fo a time, and the guy with AK flops a pair 34% of a time. When this happens you both play for stacks. And this is enough to break even. It is NOT. There is an obvious miscalculation. Say it is 66 vs AK. If we count the number of flops, that have a 6 AND an A or K we get 2*6*40+6+15*2=516. So, 516 flops out of 17296 of possible flops will give us at least a set, and our opponent at least a pair, so we stack him. And this looks more like a "rule of 40". Of course we could be up against an overpair, in which case we stack him more frequently. But we could be up against AJ, he flops a jack, bt turn comes Queen, so he backs of. It looks like my example with 66 against AK is somewhat an good starting point. But we do not have such stack in HUSNGs!

chesslw

Yeah you don't just call with a pp to set mine. It has decent showdown value as well. It just happens that in fullring games you get immediate odds to set mine a lot of the times in position making the play trivially +EV.

Obviously the higher the pp the more likely your hand is good when checked down.

Also it is a poker hand like any other- e.g. you may be able to pull off some even more fruity plays such as bluffing with 66 on a K7549 when you block the nut straight and make your opponent fold AK (representing a straightdraw that hit).

Brokerstar

N86xps

Of course. Still it is amazing, that so many people call 3bb raises 100bb deep, against a single early position raiser with the intention to flop a set or fold even to cbet. This is slightly, but -EV.

N86xps

ChrisB

N86xps

Do you mean that you are able to fold some PPs preflop?

I suppose against a passive opponent, you can just check it down and win the pot if you are ahead, and easily fold to any action. Wel... I am missing something I think:)

savrababa

This has been posted here before but don't really remember where..
I think it will help.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com...y-discussions-232934/#post4768322