quick question about limping in or lack there of

G

gatorbite35

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Total posts
7
Chips
0
Is it bad that i never limp in(sometimes in small blind)? I run 19/16 fr at 10nl and i hate limping in.. I read a thread from mpethy and he/she said that a good ratio for vpip/pfr should be around 2:1.

If it is bad to never limp in then when should i be limping in?
 
slycbnew

slycbnew

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Total posts
2,876
Chips
0
NLHE, right? If it's LHE or PLO, the responses will be different.

2:1 is a bad ratio unless you're extremely confident in your ability to outplay people postflop and have a high VPIP. 19/16 is fairly standard TAG profile for microstakes.

The reason you end up with a lower PFR than VPIP is that we're choosing to call openers in position - i.e., a tight UTG opens 4x bb, we're on BTN with a hand that plays well against openers tight range, and do not want to 3bet. If you have a 1:1 ratio, it means you're never taking the opportunity to play implied odds hands in position. This isn't limping, it's overcalling, but adds to VPIP without adding to PFR.

imo, never limping/overlimping at micro, with a TAG profile like yours, makes a lot of sense.
 
rssurfer54

rssurfer54

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Total posts
557
Chips
0
i never open limp, but occasionally i will limp if others have done so already. If its worth a call, why not make it worth a raise? :)
 
jho

jho

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Total posts
1,450
Chips
0
Like I always like to say, never say never to a poker strategy, limping is a good way to trick opponents if you have a monster like AA or KK that you might never otherwise get play with at a tight table from early position. But I'm also ready to throw it away easily depending on the flop.
 
rssurfer54

rssurfer54

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Total posts
557
Chips
0
jho said:
Like I always like to say, never say never to a poker strategy, limping is a good way to trick opponents if you have a monster like AA or KK that you might never otherwise get play with at a tight table from early position. But I'm also ready to throw it away easily depending on the flop.
Click to expand...

the problem for me is i will never open limp weaker hands, so if i do this only with big hands, im just asking to give people implied odds and draw out on me. this only works if sometimes you will open limp weak hands as well, which especially at the micros is not worth it.
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
Chips
0
The stats and the philosophies don't match. We have several members here who espouse the 'Limping makes baby Jesus cry', school of thought, yet their stats show they limp often. I know, I've got stats on a whole lot of them.

That said, we all have to realize that there are dangers in limping that just flat do not have to exist. Those same dangers exist with min raising. We should want to get any situation thinned out as much as possible, thinned to the point of singularity ideally (singularity means you are the only one left in the pot). But HU, when you are not bluffing is decent.

Limping tends to just weasel away my stack, however if you see me min-raise, understand I have monsters. <<<--- That is the official memo.;)

The way poker is played these days (subject to change any of these days), is that it makes more sense to limp with monsters, and overbet bluffs. Both have dangers of course, but more people have fear/respect for aggression than have a fear of the maniacal limper. Thus we are more likely to thin the field with aggression, thus scooping the pot, than we are with our monsters surviving a school of limpers.
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
dj11 said:
The stats and the philosophies don't match. We have several members here who espouse the 'Limping makes baby Jesus cry', school of thought, yet their stats show they limp often. I know, I've got stats on a whole lot of them.

That said, we all have to realize that there are dangers in limping that just flat do not have to exist. Those same dangers exist with min raising. We should want to get any situation thinned out as much as possible, thinned to the point of singularity ideally (singularity means you are the only one left in the pot). But HU, when you are not bluffing is decent.

Limping tends to just weasel away my stack, however if you see me min-raise, understand I have monsters. <<<--- That is the official memo.;)

The way poker is played these days (subject to change any of these days), is that it makes more sense to limp with monsters, and overbet bluffs. Both have dangers of course, but more people have fear/respect for aggression than have a fear of the maniacal limper. Thus we are more likely to thin the field with aggression, thus scooping the pot, than we are with our monsters surviving a school of limpers.
Click to expand...

Bolded is true and limping with monsters is well, not good. I don't open limp but my stats are like 16/13. The 3% where I'm not raising are calls of opening raises.

I can also guarantee that mpethy(bridge) on 2+2 would never advocate a 2:1 ratio for vpip/pfr stats. Pretty sure you should reread his advice.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
dj11 said:
The stats and the philosophies don't match. We have several members here who espouse the 'Limping makes baby Jesus cry', school of thought, yet their stats show they limp often. I know, I've got stats on a whole lot of them.

That said, we all have to realize that there are dangers in limping that just flat do not have to exist. Those same dangers exist with min raising. We should want to get any situation thinned out as much as possible, thinned to the point of singularity ideally (singularity means you are the only one left in the pot). But HU, when you are not bluffing is decent.

Limping tends to just weasel away my stack, however if you see me min-raise, understand I have monsters. <<<--- That is the official memo.;)

The way poker is played these days (subject to change any of these days), is that it makes more sense to limp with monsters, and overbet bluffs. Both have dangers of course, but more people have fear/respect for aggression than have a fear of the maniacal limper. Thus we are more likely to thin the field with aggression, thus scooping the pot, than we are with our monsters surviving a school of limpers.
Click to expand...

In the last 100K hands I have called a limp 120 times (either big MW pots with speculative hand in position or facing a limp from an agro player who never limps.. implying they are hoping they can back raise)

In the same 100K hands I have limped a total of 22 times

So the frequency of my limping is about 0.01%

Basically dont do it.. there are one or two situations where its appropriate but there arent many.
 
Arjonius

Arjonius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Total posts
3,167
Chips
0
Provided you don't go to extreme lengths, limping can be a viable strategy at 10nl because you won't get raised all that often, and when you hit a big hand, there's a decent chance you can win a large pot. That said, I don't think limping is conducive to optimizing your win rate. So you can limp a fair amount and win, but probably not as much as a good player would who doesn't limp much.
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
Chips
0
Since this is the CASH GAME FORUM, please disregard everything I've said here.

My bad for not catching this earlier. I don't know my ass from a cash game, which is a hole in the ground for me.:(

My stats are almost, but not quite, exclusively Tourneys, and I should have kept my fingers in their gloves......
 
trinitus

trinitus

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Total posts
22
Chips
0
Depending on the hand i believe u have to limp only if u have position and depending how many players are involve in the hand. At least that is my criteria of when to limp or not to limp.
 
Top