Limpers preflop effecting your starting stratagy

How to limpers preflop (and acting before you) alter the strength of cards you play preflop. i.e. if someone is playing top 20% or hands preflop, and limps before you, would you then play only top 10%?

Think we need game type and blinds to be able to try and help.

I'm more concerned with having loose squeezers behind than tight limpers in front.

I generally play NLHE STT and MTT, $5 to $30.

I'm generally cautious with someone who I haven't seen limp before who suddenly does limp.

For the infrequent limper, especially UTG or UTG+1, I usually assume their range is AQ up and 88 up (the lower the buyin, the wider the range - AT seems popular at the lower end of my buyin range). If the limper is first to act and in mid to late position, I assume their range is somewhere around 87s up to AJo, and any pocket pair up to TT (better hands would mostly be raised rather than limped in mid to late position).

Against the early position infrequent limper, my hands requirements increase to roughly the same range I'm assigning them - if I think I'm above 50% of that range , I'm generally raising, otherwise I'm looking for a favorable flop and the limper's actions on the flop. Against the mid to late position infrequent limper, if I have position, I'm using a similar range to what I think they're range is, but including a lot of suited connectors - if I'm out of position (blinds), my range is generally tighter than the range I'm putting them on (I want AT, bigger suited connectors, 88). I'm more likely to flat call a mid to late position limper, but still raising with premium hands. This generally holds true for me from level 3 or 4 up to around level 7 or 8, assuming my stack is healthy.

I tend to increase the number of starting hands I'll play behind players who I see limping frequently, or behind multiple limpers, rather than tighten up. I'll limp more suited connectors and pocket pairs behind than I normally do, and even non-suited connectors that I'd otherwise stay away from (say 65o). When I get hands that I consider stealing raising hands preflop - say 87s up to QJs, or 66 up to 88 - I'm more likely to raise a single frequent limper, though almost always flat calling multiple limpers.

I'm looking for implied odds with frequent limpers, looking for bigger payoffs when I connect with the flop. Multiple limpers are very attractive here, particularly in the third through fifth levels of the tourney. Obviously I'm leaking chips when I miss, but when I hit I can frequently build my stack quickly - and my legitimate raising hands get less respect when I show down one of these hands, leading to bigger payoffs with those real hands.

I'm avoiding confrontations with early position limpers, unless I have a quality hand. How the flop hits me is more important than with mid and late position limpers.

What's your strategy with the limper? What do you think of the above? What ways are there to evaluate these strategies with pokertracker, pokerstove, or other tools?

If I'm playing cash, then I tend to limp a lot, but any type of tourny, I prefer tight strategy

Limpers are great!! You can enter the pot with a speculative hand for cheap. If you have a premium cards, put in a huge raise and pick up the dead money.

You don't need a premium hand to pick up the dead money.

I probably play too many different levels, but you have to know what kind of limpers you're facing. Sometimes they're really tight and limp/call with JJ/TT/AQo and so on. Sometimes they're fish and limp/call with T4 because it's suited and they've put money into the pot already. Others limp/fold even if limpers ahead of them called the raise and they're getting pot odds that are too good to fold.

But if you're thinking in terms of limping behind, then you're hoping to have suited connectors or suited gapped connectors or low pairs, something where you can hit a mulitway flop hard.

Don't go the opposite way and start calling with hands like KJ, hands that can get you into trouble.

Stop limping, start raising limpers. Against a limper or two, I isolate REALLY wide, because, well, they just can't have much.... cuz they limped.

Do you not think that by constantly raising limpers,

you unbalance your stratagy,
make it far easier for opponents to define the range of your hand,
offer large implied odds to premium hands,
limit your own ability to play and conseal speculative hands ?

Oh by the way, the game I am refering to is No limit, full ring, cash games.

I understand that in tournaments, you are playing with much shorter stacks and so a higher proportion of premium hands are needed, this negates any necessity to limp yourself

Obviosly I am not C9 who is much better player than I am but in response to your questions Widening your range actually would have the opposite effect to your concerns above.

Unbalance - no because adusting to limpers should already be something you are prepared for as it is something you come across a lot.

Easier to define range - No because you range has widened it will make it much harder

Implied odds - Raising reduces implied odds and really only becomes a factor if they call and presumably you will be making adjustments if that ocurrs and can out play them post flop

Conceal speculative hands - again no becuase by widening your range with raises with speculative hands you will be disguising your hands better.

Just my thoughts I play the monkey stakes so it might not have the depth of a response you were looking for.

Just because somebody limps into a pot, does not mean they don't have a hand.

I see people limp for different reasons, one of them being the are playing a marginal hand and another they are slow playing a big hand. When playing a marginal hand, they player usually wants to see a flop for cheap, so limping in an un-raised pot is a perfect way to do this. The player with the big hand might try to get more people in the pot and won't raise in late position if there are many players in the pot to attempt to keep them in and get more value added to the pot.

I rarely like to limp, on some occasions I will, depending on if there is somebody in the pot that is a calling station and I feel they are playing crap and getting lucky, or if I want to play a not so good hand and see if I get lucky. I usually raise no matter what two cards I'm playing, to attempt to get the limpers that don't have strong hands out. Still, raising a limper does not mean they will fold.

1) I'm not sure I know what unbalancing my strategy means. It shouldn't ever be a strategy to "limp every so often". If anything, it helps my strategy, because my strategy is to raise a lot.
2) No, I raise ~27% of my hands preflop, and more in late position. My range is WIDE. If I limp, it would be far easier for them to define my range, because then a ton of good hands that I usually raise with aren't in that range.
3) By raising, you reduce your reverse implied odds. If I limped with aces, I'm offering more implied odds to them than if I 4-bet right?
4) Speculative hands are often limped, and by raising them, they're concealed. The only problem is that you lose some implied odds against your opponents by raising them. However, you gain the ability to c-bet/get them to check to you on the flop, which is worth plenty more than some loss in implied odds.

Go to hold'em manager & run the filter "Heads up on the flop, no PFR". Then run "Heads up on the flop". You should be massively more profitable when you're heads up on the flop as the preflop raiser.

Quote:

Just because somebody limps into a pot, does not mean they don't have a hand.

Right, but it means there's a 95% chance they don't have a good hand . Or at least they think its not good enough to raise, which says a lot.

I cant see how widening your raising range will help here.

Imagine two equaly statted players, i.e. play top 20% hands and raise top 10%

first player limpls, so his hand is somewhere within top 10 - 20% (but occasionally it will be a trap and his hand is much stronger preflop)

so to put a figure on it we say his hand is within top 15%

Now what advantage does widening our raising range gain us?

The times that he is playing a hand in 15-20 % he will fold, but the times he is playing a hand 10-15% he will probably call.

By raising we can be certain that his hand is good, but as he has put money in already, we will not get him to fold with all but his raising range.

Therefore the cost of seeing the flop increases, but the decisions are not made that much easier post flop, so its not like you are paying to make your own decisiuons easier.

I can see that you would want to tighten up a little, pre flop palying yourself only top 15%, and that things like suited connectors become more playable against multiple limpers, but right now, I cannot see the advantage of widening the raising range.

But see now you are introducing a very specific situation into what was originally a very vague question. In the case above your raise would be interpretted as a strong holding if they play the same as you. If your preflop raise didn't get the immediately fold and you have some odd hand like J10s and the flop come out J 10 2 rainbow. You would then C-bet, again either you would take it immediately etc, etc.

Also your decisions will become easier as you will be able to weight your opponents holdings to stronger hands than just his preflop limping range as he was able to call your raise. Also if he reraises you then you can fold etc, etc.

I prefer to raise with most hands just to make the blinds have to choose to fold or play

By unbalancing your stratagy - in your case you raise often, so you raise with premium hands and again you raise with your weak hands (in itsself thats balanced.. but what do you call with? Your statagy dosnt seem to include calls / limps.. which is ok, but by doing so you increase the cost of playing your speculative hands. This is because you either do not limp or only limp occasionally with very weak hands when the odds are good.. so it implies that you are, in those situations, set mining or playing suited connectors. It may be that you simply dont play these. But if you do, the stratagy seems too biastowards raising.

By raising - you do not always reduce implied odds. If someone holds AA at table with players bias towards raising, they can limp raise because they can virtually guarantee that someone will raise. Therefore, preflop agains hands that want to get the money inprefop this is a tendency which could be exploited.

The last point you made with speculaive hands is what I mentioned ealier about increasing the costs of playing these hands.

Although I have 'picked on you' in the sense that I am questioning what you have said, its not the case that i know all the answers here and feel that you are nessecarily wrong.

I am trying to form my own opinion of how to play against limpers and that means picking away atwhat people say until I am left with a stratagy which I fully understand.. a stratagy which I find to be flawless and one which I can (in my own mind) justify any decision made based upon it.

So please lets keep thsi discussion going and please dont anyone get offended when I start picking away as it is the way in which i learn and then modify my own startagies.

Thanks

yes I was trying to keep it vauge as to allow people to talk in general terms of stratagy rather than how to play X and Y.

I gave the example to try and illustrate why I didnt think widening the raising range was the nessicarrily a good idea. However i am not trying to lock you into a discussion about two players with specific stats.. it was just an example. Instead I would like to keep it more general because I feel that the closer you look at an aspect of a stratagy,the harder it is to understand the stratagy.

Yes you do. Implied odds come the money behind by raising you are reducing that.

example:

UTG+1 (tight player limps) 150bb deep.

Hero in MP raises to 5bb (4bb+1 limper) everyone folds except UTG+1.

No matter what Hero is holding you have reduced the implied odds of your hand becuase you know how you will proceed with the hand If you are holding a small pp and miss your set, you will c-bet and they you are done. if you holding something else like QJ and have a strong draw you will play it in what ever way you play it but you will have a plan.

if you limp behind however your implied odds are greater becuase you will have much murkier understanding of how you want to proceed with the hand. And while just tightening up and folding is a option it is to easily exploited imo and you will be missing out on good opportunities.

Also, lets be clear. I would never say always raise limpers that is wrong. You have to understand your opponents, how they percieve you and soemtimes you just need to fold trash hands. But at the same time just because you are holding a hand that you would like to see a flop with like J10 and limping is a cheap way to do, raising helps disguise what you are doing and can provide other profitable ways to proceed with the hand when you c-bet the flop and take down a raised pot that you might not have been able to if you limped.

^^^

maybe I am using the wrong term when I say implied odds in this situation.

What I am getting at is by having a large bias towards raising limpers you are making it easier for them to check raise you, because they are more confident that you will raise with a less than premium hand. Thus they are able to get more of your money in preflop.

I would have classed that as implied odds as if the check raise with an enormous raise, it should end the hand at that point.

By limping more, you force them to initaially raise a premium hand as they are less likely to take the limp raise risk of waiting for someone else to raise.

+1

That isn't a check raise, that is a 3bet. The are raising your raise of the already posted blind. Again villian specific you would need to know if the villian is a light 3 better and folds to much to 4bets. Not something I am particularly good at by the way but I am aware it s something I need to work on. HUD stats wil go a long way towards identifying these types of players and

Here is a post C9 wrote about 3 and 4 betting that might be what you are looking for : Click_Me

my strategy is extremely balanced: i never overlimp. Which makes my raising range the most balanced you can think of.

No, if he limps, his hand will be towards the bottom end of his range (with occasionally some monsters mixed in, but that's pretty rare). If his VPIP is 20%, and his PFR is 10%, he's probably playing the bottom 50% of his range.

It doesn't gain us equity, it gains initiative. Which is worth far more than the 0.0001bb we lose by raising our top 30% of hands against the bottom half of his range. Additionally, we know he's probably not limping hands like AK, JJ, and we know he's more likely to limp stuff like 22, 45s. So we can now play well against his range.

No, fish suck, and call all the time with their whole range. And even if they fold, we make money.

Yes they are. Most limping hands play fit/fold on the flop. So we c-bet, they fold 75% of the time, and we profit. And when they pitch a fit, they've hit a set/combodraw/two pair/trips and we'll play very well against them, folding when we have air, and drawing with implied odds when we have a draw to a better hand.

Not raising for fear of being limp/raised is retarded. I think I've been limp/3-bet like 4 times total. And often, its against some terrible player who has no idea what they're doing and I stack them with 99+/AK+. (http://www.cardschat.com/f50/50nl-6-max-i-give-you-133999/) Limp/3-betting is a decent move in theory, but the problem is that most hands you want to actually 3-bet play TERRIBLY in limped pots. And you give up a ton of value by not just raising them in the first place. Even though I raise a lot, I only raise 27% of the time. The other 73%, I'll usually pass, and they'll often have to play a limped pot. Course, I play 6-max, so there's more incentive to raise as the blinds are easier to steal, but I'm sure the concept is pretty similar playing full ring.

yes, i play full ring and it's exactly the same.

that being said, i love limpers because, tbh, they give me a hell of a lot of money...

Thanks c9h13n03 good advice there.

Just one bit id like to clarify

I wasnt saying that we wouldnt raise because of fear of being lip raised, I was advocating (ocasionally) limping so that players could not take limping as a sign of strength or weakness, thus if we limped before them they would not be able to be 100% certain that we had a hand or not.

I also was saying that by not consistantly raising limpers, we were not allowing limpers to trap us with a check raise. Not so much fear here, just if they dont feel confidedent that we always raise, it makes it harder for them to trap. It dosent make it impossible, just it makes it harder for them to predict our actions and thus makes us harder to play against.

Saying that, most of the time say 75% we will be raising our good hands, the 25% we dont, its to allow us to be more deceptive and to make our opponents post flop decisions much harder.

You would have to play against one specific person a LOT to have worry about this imo, and you shouldn't be playing the good regulars that often. You should be seeking out the fishy regulars or the fishy not so regulars and just taking their money.

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of that .. and also a big thanks to C9 for writing it. I have seen the article before, but will reread it as it seems to be the jist of what i was refering to when talking about preflop 'implied odds' when infact what I was refering to was 3 betting light.

I suppose that is very true. You would have to play against people for a long time before the balanc in the stratagy actually paid off.