A
angrybanana
Enthusiast
Silver Level
I'm somewhat of a noob and getting through Phil Gordons Little Green Book. Where he talks about limping I understand the reasoning behind losing 1BB four times and winning on the fifth time for the amount of 5BB giving me a net gain of 1 BB. What I don't understand is what do marginal vs big hands have to do with it. Here is the excerpt:
"I have found limping to be most effective when I do it with a marginal hand about four times more often than I do with big hands. Why is that? Mathimatics.
Assume my opponents are likely to raise about five times the size of the big blind when I limp, in an effort to get to fold. If I follow the four to one ratio above, then four out of five times I will have a mediocre hand that I will have to fold after my opponents raise. Over the course of those hands I will lose the equivalent of four BBs. On the fifth time, I will have a strong hand, re-raise the raiser, and (hopefully) win the pot right there. I will win the money they have raised- about five times the size of the BB- and cover the four times I have lost, leaving me with a net gain equivalent to 1 BB"
"I have found limping to be most effective when I do it with a marginal hand about four times more often than I do with big hands. Why is that? Mathimatics.
Assume my opponents are likely to raise about five times the size of the big blind when I limp, in an effort to get to fold. If I follow the four to one ratio above, then four out of five times I will have a mediocre hand that I will have to fold after my opponents raise. Over the course of those hands I will lose the equivalent of four BBs. On the fifth time, I will have a strong hand, re-raise the raiser, and (hopefully) win the pot right there. I will win the money they have raised- about five times the size of the BB- and cover the four times I have lost, leaving me with a net gain equivalent to 1 BB"