Open limping on the button?

I know the idea is generally to raise basically ATC on the button when it's folded to you. But is ever profitable to limp on the button with semi strong hands hoping to let ur opponents hit tp and pay you off? I experimented with pocket 5s twice and flopped sets and one opponent stacked off with 10-4 on a 10 high board and the other opponent called three pot size bets. Is this a viable strategy against bad 10nl FR opponents? Obviously I know these two hands mean nothing and I'm only flopping a set 1 in 8 and there are no guarantees that I'll stack them anyway. So is there any merit in limping on the button? Why? And with what type of hands?

I think it's good to mix up your play.
sometimes you should raise sometimes don't..makes you inscrutable

I love to limp from the button with strong hands...I find in the .05/.10 rings if you mix it up and throw a couple limps in and take down the hands that the fish dont notice but the good players tend to be warry of you and its easier to sneak a steal in after. imo only...Im no shark

Madmansam said:

I know the idea is generally to raise basically ATC on the button when it's folded to you. But is ever profitable to limp on the button with semi strong hands hoping to let ur opponents hit tp and pay you off? I experimented with pocket 5s twice and flopped sets and one opponent stacked off with 10-4 on a 10 high board and the other opponent called three pot size bets. Is this a viable strategy against bad 10nl FR opponents? Obviously I know these two hands mean nothing and I'm only flopping a set 1 in 8 and there are no guarantees that I'll stack them anyway. So is there any merit in limping on the button? Why? And with what type of hands?

Click to expand...

Open-limping is never a good idea. By limping you allow the BB to see a free flop and if you do flop a monster it will be hard to build a big pot as a pot sized c-bet will only be 3.5 bb. If you open raise to 3.5bb and the BB calls then a c-bet is 9bb. Do you see how hard it would be to take someone's stack by limping?

Open raising with 'ATC' on the button is a bad idea also as the blinds will realize you are playing a lot of junk and start 3betting you. If you raise with 92o from the button and get 3bet then what?

It is ok to play a fairly wide range from the button but you want to play hole cards that have a reasonable chance of flopping some equity and that is why you want to raise, for value so when you do make a good hand you can build a big pot.

I used to do it, but I found the pot is so small people will not put up much of a fight for it. You also have no reads as they could have anything which might get you in trouble. Although I think there is a place for every move in poker so if it works for you enough in your own experience then go for it.

by rule...never EVER open limp...if its not worth raising...its not worth playing

cheers and gl

its pretty much a terrible idea 99.9999% of the time

I limp once in awhile just to mix it up but.....but....but....I only do it when I have good info on my opponent and what he will do in that situation.

Goodwooter said:

by rule...never EVER open limp...if its not worth raising...its not worth playing

cheers and gl

Click to expand...

this x2

i never ever open limp into a pot...

the way i mix up my play is my mixing up my range and not by switching between limping/raising

Never Limp The Button (hard version): God gives us the button so we can steal the blinds. How can we steal by limping? We can't... raise (a lot of hands) or fold.

Never Limp The Button (soft version): While we are never limping on the button, we might notice that one of the two players to our left is a tenacious blind defender (pre-flop) but plays fit or fold from the flop on. If this player is unlikely to lay down to a "steal" but very likely to fold when he misses the flop... then we can limp buttons and fire flops with our button stealing range... stealing his blind OTF.

Double-A said:

Never Limp The Button (soft version): While we are never limping on the button, we might notice that one of the two players to our left is a tenacious blind defender (pre-flop) but plays fit or fold from the flop on. If this player is unlikely to lay down to a "steal" but very likely to fold when he misses the flop... then we can limp buttons and fire flops with our button stealing range... stealing his blind OTF.

Click to expand...

If the blinds are as described above limping the button is lighting money on fire. We should raise to something like 4x against these players so we when we cbet postflop we win more money.

As for when/if we should limp the button I'd say only with a VERY specific read (the blinds don't call bets but ALWAYS raise limpers) and a very strong hand.

Madmansam said:

I know the idea is generally to raise basically ATC on the button when it's folded to you.

Click to expand...

Thats not the idea. Why would you raise a hand like 32o if the blinds are unlikely to fold?

WVHillbilly said:

If the blinds are as described above limping the button is lighting money on fire. We should raise to something like 4x against these players so we when we cbet postflop we win more money.

As for when/if we should limp the button I'd say only with a VERY specific read (the blinds don't call bets but ALWAYS raise limpers) and a very strong hand.

Click to expand...

I'm either confused or I didn't express myself very clearly...

When I said "tenacious blind defender" I was referring to a player who is consistently thwarting my steal attempts with 3bets. If this guy folds too many flops, then I'm going to limp the button with intent to steal on the flop. Of course, I'm still going to raise my strong hands, hoping he 3bets them.

But, I do see what you are saying against a player who calls too much.

And, I also think you summed it up best w/ limping the button requiring a very specific read.

Double-A said:

I'm either confused or I didn't express myself very clearly...

When I said "tenacious blind defender" I was referring to a player who is consistently thwarting my steal attempts with 3bets. If this guy folds too many flops, then I'm going to limp the button with intent to steal on the flop. Of course, I'm still going to raise my strong hands, hoping he 3bets them.

But, I do see what you are saying against a player who calls too much.

And, I also think you summed it up best w/ limping the button requiring a very specific read.

Click to expand...

Yeah sorry I read your post as against blinds who call everything not blinds who 3bet everything.

WVHillbilly said:

Yeah sorry I read your post as against blinds who call everything not blinds who 3bet everything.

Click to expand...

No worries.

I get a lot more out of reading your posts than you'll ever get from reading mine... From what I've read, I respect how you think about the game. Your comments/criticisms are always welcome.

Double-A said:

When I said "tenacious blind defender" I was referring to a player who is consistently thwarting my steal attempts with 3bets. If this guy folds too many flops, then I'm going to limp the button with intent to steal on the flop. Of course, I'm still going to raise my strong hands, hoping he 3bets them.

Click to expand...

These villians dont exist at these stakes.

If the 3bet as wide as you say then choose 1 of the 2 stratagies.

1) 4bet bluff ATC (if the 3bet fold a lot)

2) tighten up and 4bet shove if they call a lot (A9 is ahead of villians range if he 3bets ATC and then calls most shoves)

Really.. these guys dont exist at these stakes.

Stu_Ungar said:

These villians dont exist at these stakes.

If the 3bet as wide as you say then choose 1 of the 2 stratagies.

1) 4bet bluff ATC (if the 3bet fold a lot)

2) tighten up and 4bet shove if they call a lot (A9 is ahead of villians range if he 3bets ATC and then calls most shoves)

Really.. these guys dont exist at these stakes.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that anyone is really qualified to know which Villains do or do not exist at a given level of stakes. Really, that's just an awkward statement...

Maybe they don't show up enough to be a major concern... okay... but thinking along the lines of "that never happens" or "always do this or that" is just bad poker...

It's bad poker because good poker is: choosing the best option given a specific situation. If we have a predetermined situation or choice in mind then sometimes we'll get it right/wrong but luck will be the determining factor. If we base our decisions upon the situation/options at hand we'll get it right/wrong but the results will be based on luck/skill.

Pigeonholing is just intellectual laziness.

Double-A said:

I don't believe that anyone is really qualified to know which Villains do or do not exist at a given level of stakes. Really, that's just an awkward statement...

Maybe they don't show up enough to be a major concern... okay... but thinking along the lines of "that never happens" or "always do this or that" is just bad poker...

It's bad poker because good poker is: choosing the best option given a specific situation. If we have a predetermined situation or choice in mind then sometimes we'll get it right/wrong but luck will be the determining factor. If we base our decisions upon the situation/options at hand we'll get it right/wrong but the results will be based on luck/skill.

Pigeonholing is just intellectual laziness.

Click to expand...

You are qualified.

Run a filter of all hands where you get 3 bet from the blinds after opening from the button and you see a showdown.

What kind of hands do they show up with?

Double-A said:

It's bad poker because good poker is: choosing the best option given a specific situation. If we have a predetermined situation or choice in mind then sometimes we'll get it right/wrong but luck will be the determining factor. If we base our decisions upon the situation/options at hand we'll get it right/wrong but the results will be based on luck/skill.

Pigeonholing is just intellectual laziness.

Click to expand...

This makes sense in theory but not in practice.

In practice we rarely have enough information on the villain (at these stakes) to make giant deviations from our normal strategy.

If you have less than 10K hands on an individual villian then you "pigeonhole" that villian because you really dont know all that much about how he plays. In 1 or 2 sessions you really cant distinguish between a guy on a heater and a guy who is over aggressive if you dont see a showdown. BUT most people "pigionhole" the guy as over-agressive and then wonder why they loose to him.

Stu_Ungar said:

You are qualified.

Run a filter of all hands where you get 3 bet from the blinds after opening from the button and you see a showdown.

What kind of hands do they show up with?

Click to expand...

I'm too drunk to filter anything right now but I will... and if I don't and keep posting to this thread then please remind me.

Double-A said:

I'm too drunk to filter anything right now but I will... and if I don't and keep posting to this thread then please remind me.

Click to expand...

No problems.

Its a bit early here for me to join you in a drink!

You may want to have a bit of a think as to why I said we need more than 10K hands on a villian to really understand how he plays. Infact I would go further and say we really need 100K hands.

Obviously at micros we never have 10K hands let alone 100K hence the need to group player types. (pigionholes)

Usually we have 400ish hands.

Imagine what would happen if you posted your own results here based on 400hands. What would people say? 400 hands is too small an amount to figure out how well or not you play.

So if we cant determine our own play based on 400 hands (and we get to see all of our hole cards plus fully understand our own decisions) then how can we know our opponents play so well that we are able to make dramatic shifts from our overall strategy based on the generic player type we assign to that player? Bear in mind we dont get to see all of his hole cards and we dont get a running commentary during the hand of his decision making process.

This thread is a dumpster fire.

Stu_Ungar said:

These villians dont exist at these stakes.

If the 3bet as wide as you say then choose 1 of the 2 stratagies.

1) 4bet bluff ATC (if the 3bet fold a lot)

2) tighten up and 4bet shove if they call a lot (A9 is ahead of villians range if he 3bets ATC and then calls most shoves)

Really.. these guys dont exist at these stakes.

Click to expand...

Or leave the table.

rssurfer54 said:

Or leave the table.

Click to expand...

At these stakes thats by far the best option

Stu_Ungar said:

Thats not the idea. Why would you raise a hand like 32o if the blinds are unlikely to fold?

Click to expand...

The original idea of the OP wasn't about blinds that defended a lot. Actually it was more of me thinking that if I raise, say pocket 5s, and the blinds fold, I win 1.5 bb. I was implying that if I limp and they catch tp or something and I flop a set I can win significantly more.