Limping strategies

[Dobbler1]

At micro-stakes online, I see a lot of players employ a limping strategy, putting money into sometimes as much as 80+ percent of pots, and calling 3bets very wide preflop. Some of them seem to have some success, although it's hard to say if this is just a case of small sample size. I believe that for the most part they are playing poorly and as long as I'm not playing like an idiot, I tend to do pretty well at taking their money. I'm wondering if I'm underestimating this approach somehow. Is there more to it than meets the eye? Does anyone here employ it, and if so, what's your reasoning?

 

[spunka]

Yep I am one those that like to see cheap flops.
Keeping the pot down till I know a bit more about where I am, when I have limping in my range it also give me more hands I can play, so I dont get bored. Also I do not very often open limp, it is most calling limp I do.

 

[Dobbler1]

Yep I am one those that like to see cheap flops.
Keeping the pot down till I know a bit more about where I am, when I have limping in my range it also give me more hands I can play, so I dont get bored. Also I do not very often open limp, it is most calling limp I do.

How do you respond to big 3bets from players in later positions? Do you just fold most of you marginal hands, or do you call and try your luck? Do you limp with strong hands too? Do you ever raise preflop?

 

[spunka]

it depends on how flop texture is, and opponet, there are many maniac that just raise to be able to take the pot down, so with right flop and hand you can take big pots from those.

I usually fold if opponent have thight stats, and I dont see any future in the hand, sometimes I reraise but it is very flop and opponent depending.

if we have a limp or 2/3 BB raise and are deep and I call, with an oki hand and a player behind raise, I might go for a reraise, to have to play fewer player on later streets.

 

[rastapapolos]

Normally when there are big raises preflop, the limper should fold. If he calls, he'll be loosing money on the long run. Poker is about equity.

 

[spunka]

Normally when there are big raises preflop, the limper should fold. If he calls, he'll be loosing money on the long run. Poker is about equity.

Hmm you do not know what the limper is holding….
The long run, he could also be saving money…..
to use equity you need to have informations.

 

[eberetta1]

I see a lot of higher stakes games where they limp, instead of showing strength by raising preflop.

 

[jack12de]

I think there is one good situation for limping: that is the start of a tournament where you have a stack of 50 bb or more. With hands like 66 or 98s you don't can win much preflop but it is worth to see a flop cheaply and sometimes you get a big pot...
And Headsup-play

 

[TeUnit]

I really do not think you should be doing almost any open limping in MTTs.

The exception to this would be short stack play if you are doing a limp and go, a limp and outplay, or a limp and pray.

 

[Niveau1]

Limping in and of itself is not a good idea. You can't win a pot preflop and very often watching the flop is more expensive than if you made a prebet yourself.

 

[choprav]

“Limping is pimping!” 😎

 

[Matt_Burns88]

Open limping is generally not a good play in tournaments except from SB. There are of course exceptions when you are trying to exploit a particular opponent, but often you are going to be making more money in the long run by playing a tighter range and only open raising.

 

[Kinalha]

At micro-stakes online, I see a lot of players employ a limping strategy, putting money into sometimes as much as 80+ percent of pots, and calling 3bets very wide preflop. Some of them seem to have some success, although it's hard to say if this is just a case of small sample size. I believe that for the most part they are playing poorly and as long as I'm not playing like an idiot, I tend to do pretty well at taking their money. I'm wondering if I'm underestimating this approach somehow. Is there more to it than meets the eye? Does anyone here employ it, and if so, what's your reasoning?

The most part of this players it's not making any strategy, they are just bad players and want to see the flop to hit something

 

[Dobbler1]

The most part of this players it's not making any strategy, they are just bad players and want to see the flop to hit something

Yes, I believe that in most cases it is a limping preference or limping approach, as opposed to a strategy. I was trying to suss out from someone who does it if there is an actual strategy there.

 

[AmiableFool]

When you see a lot of players doing anything in poker, beware. The majority (some say 90%) of poker players are losing money in the long run. The fact that some of the limpers in your games win pots here and there isn't really relevant because of the nature of the game; every style is going to win some money sometimes.

There are four reasons that limping hurts your long-term results:

• You have only one way to win: you must make the best hand.
• You allow more people into the pot; multiway pots are always harder to win.
• You signal to the table that you have a weak hand, opening yourself up to exploitation.
• If you are balancing your limping range with strong holdings, you limit the amount you can win with the top of that range.

Solvers may give some spots where limping makes sense; if you plan to implement a perfect solver approach, you should adopt all of its recommendations. But be aware of two things. First, solver strategies work best against perfect opponents; if we are playing in the right games our opponents are very imperfect. Second, most of us will struggle to perfectly implement solver strategies; when we do so, we risk adopting only the easy ones (like limping) while failing to perform well in other more profitable spots. This is a costly mistake.

You can simplify your life: raise to give yourself two ways to win every hand.

 

[Dobbler1]

When you see a lot of players doing anything in poker, beware. The majority (some say 90%) of poker players are losing money in the long run. The fact that some of the limpers in your games win pots here and there isn't really relevant because of the nature of the game; every style is going to win some money sometimes.

There are four reasons that limping hurts your long-term results:

• You have only one way to win: you must make the best hand.
• You allow more people into the pot; multiway pots are always harder to win.
• You signal to the table that you have a weak hand, opening yourself up to exploitation.
• If you are balancing your limping range with strong holdings, you limit the amount you can win with the top of that range.

Solvers may give some spots where limping makes sense; if you plan to implement a perfect solver approach, you should adopt all of its recommendations. But be aware of two things. First, solver strategies work best against perfect opponents; if we are playing in the right games our opponents are very imperfect. Second, most of us will struggle to perfectly implement solver strategies; when we do so, we risk adopting only the easy ones (like limping) while failing to perform well in other more profitable spots. This is a costly mistake.

You can simplify your life: raise to give yourself two ways to win every hand.

For the record, I'm not trying to understand whatever the strategy is because I'm considering adopting it, so no need to try to convince me. Just trying to understand the thought process involved, and see if there is more advance thinking than "I'd like to see lots of flops".

 

[AmiableFool]

For the record, I'm not trying to understand whatever the strategy is because I'm considering adopting it, so no need to try to convince me. Just trying to understand the thought process involved, and see if there is more advance thinking than "I'd like to see lots of flops".

I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying!

I can offer two perspectives: one from my own experience as a new player and one from the experience of a close friend.

When I started playing, I was extremely risk-averse. Even when playing microstakes games, it hurt to lose any money. I adopted strategies that I thought would limit my risk. The thinking went like this:

I don't know what the flop will be and I can only see my two cards. I'll have lots more information on the flop, so every decision I make after that will be better.

My friend is a very aggressive player. He loves putting the hurt on his opponents, especially ones who are better than him. By limping, he maximizes the number of hands he gets to play and (in his mind) increases his chances of getting lucky. When he doesn't hit a hand he enjoys bluffing them out of pots. He lives for those moments of winning with bad hands against good players.

Does that work better as an answer?

 

[Dobbler1]

I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying!

I can offer two perspectives: one from my own experience as a new player and one from the experience of a close friend.

When I started playing, I was extremely risk-averse. Even when playing microstakes games, it hurt to lose any money. I adopted strategies that I thought would limit my risk. The thinking went like this:

I don't know what the flop will be and I can only see my two cards. I'll have lots more information on the flop, so every decision I make after that will be better.

My friend is a very aggressive player. He loves putting the hurt on his opponents, especially ones who are better than him. By limping, he maximizes the number of hands he gets to play and (in his mind) increases his chances of getting lucky. When he doesn't hit a hand he enjoys bluffing them out of pots. He lives for those moments of winning with bad hands against good players.

Does that work better as an answer?

That certainly matches a couple of the playing styles I see from limpers, so yes.

 

[Pokerpoet2]

At micro-stakes online, I see a lot of players employ a limping strategy, putting money into sometimes as much as 80+ percent of pots, and calling 3bets very wide preflop. Some of them seem to have some success, although it's hard to say if this is just a case of small sample size. I believe that for the most part they are playing poorly and as long as I'm not playing like an idiot, I tend to do pretty well at taking their money. I'm wondering if I'm underestimating this approach somehow. Is there more to it than meets the eye? Does anyone here employ it, and if so, what's your reasoning?

The main problem with playing micro stake games is that most of the players are newbies and do get lucky. you will not find any pros among them and they are difficult to read,
I ran a weekly pub game and although all of us were newbies in one way or another, there were some good players that regularly made the Final table every week, I was one of the regular finalists, so much so I won many seats to regional final events and once even qualified for the National finals.
But there were players that played only once a month or so and were terribly hard to read, playing any 2 cards they were dealt, not because they were decent starting hands but they were lucky SOBs that always seemed to hit the flop big style.
They were also calling machines and were so easy to beat once they had made a pair or two pair with a small straight or flush in your own hand, We had one guy who insisted he had made two pair when there was a pair on the table and could not grasp why everyone involved in the hand also had that pair as well, and fell victim to many players having three of a kind or even a full house.
You get a lot of these newbies playing Omaha as well thinking they have the "nuts" when they hold a bare Ace on a 4 suited board, not realising they need 2 suited cards to win.
Limping in against these type of players is always the best strategy for me as it will not cost me much to see a Flop and they are easy prey to trap when I do have a hand, a phrase I always have in my mind is "Softly Softly, Catchee Monkey! Wait for the right spots and catch them with their hands in the cookie jar.

 

[kley126]

I think it's a very bad strategy and you're not doing wrong as long as you can take all your money you'll be perfect that's what devouring the fish is all about.

 

[MrHachiman]

The limp strategy you allude to and many micro-stakes players use is simply -EV.
They always calling a ROL or 3bet preflop, so they lack initiative and many times they cannot materialize the equity of their hand until the river since they end up folding on the flop or turn.
The number of times they hit a hand from the flop as trips, doubles, etc., is much less in proportion to the times they must fold or self-induce themselves to stake with less than a top pair since otherwise they would never reach the river.
It's a strategy that just doesn't make sense, if you have a hand you want to play you should raise it. It will always be more profitable.
The only point where it might make sense to limp is to induce, against certain specific players but in late positions like BU, SB.
Or in high stakes, having a balanced limp strategy also makes sense.

 

[Dobbler1]

The main problem with playing micro stake games is that most of the players are newbies and do get lucky.

I don't see this as a problem. If they don't get lucky, they probably won't stick around or keep playing poorly. That leaves me with a higher level of competition, which isn't ideal.

Limping in against these type of players is always the best strategy for me as it will not cost me much to see a Flop and they are easy prey to trap when I do have a hand, a phrase I always have in my mind is "Softly Softly, Catchee Monkey! Wait for the right spots and catch them with their hands in the cookie jar.

Doesn't this invite bad beats? I envision limping with kings and the board coming up something like J62 rainbow. If he thinks top pair is an awesome hand, then you've got to call him when he bets pot on each street with your over pair, right? Even if there are no scare cards on the turn or river... say it comes 7 and Q. You okay with loosing 40-50BB (assuming you play passive post-flop) with kings against his 6-2?

 

[Luvepoker]

The main problem with playing micro stake games is that most of the players are newbies and do get lucky. you will not find any pros among them and they are difficult to read,
I ran a weekly pub game and although all of us were newbies in one way or another, there were some good players that regularly made the Final table every week, I was one of the regular finalists, so much so I won many seats to regional final events and once even qualified for the National finals.
But there were players that played only once a month or so and were terribly hard to read, playing any 2 cards they were dealt, not because they were decent starting hands but they were lucky SOBs that always seemed to hit the flop big style.
They were also calling machines and were so easy to beat once they had made a pair or two pair with a small straight or flush in your own hand, We had one guy who insisted he had made two pair when there was a pair on the table and could not grasp why everyone involved in the hand also had that pair as well, and fell victim to many players having three of a kind or even a full house.
You get a lot of these newbies playing Omaha as well thinking they have the "nuts" when they hold a bare Ace on a 4 suited board, not realising they need 2 suited cards to win.
Limping in against these type of players is always the best strategy for me as it will not cost me much to see a Flop and they are easy prey to trap when I do have a hand, a phrase I always have in my mind is "Softly Softly, Catchee Monkey! Wait for the right spots and catch them with their hands in the cookie jar.

Absolutely know what your saying here. I actually love these players as they are also the best in donating to your stack. Somedays you get beating by some really odd hands but overall its a winning situation for smart players.

 

[Aballinamion]

Here is my limping strategy for cash games:

I never, ever limp: I do not open limp, I do not post preflop OOP or IP, I do not limp call, and 98% of times I’m not completing from the SB.
Why? Check Cardschat 30 days poker course on how to become a winning player: check the video lesson, the chapter in the book and also the thread discussing one major thing: the power of aggression.
When we do limp preflop, no matter with what hand, we are giving up initiative upon the hand. We allow other players to limp after us and thus reducing even more our equity.
We raise preflop to try to play a heads-up pot, thus our equity will be best. When we raise preflop we can c-bet flop for bluff or for value.
There are some many advantages of raising preflop that is impossible to state them all.

 

[LOKIE77]

Hi for tournaments I like to see a lot of cheap flops with those speculative hands that need good implied odds to play especially from the early stages of the tournament as it gets too expensive to speculate as the tournament wears on and the blinds and antes keep going up and if you are not building your stack yoiu will soon be short stacked. On that note when I'm short stacked I do a lot of limping and calling limpers, Having said all that if I'm the first one into the pot I never limp I always raise first in and I generally assess the table first before I limp in from early or middle position as against strong player you will get reraised off your speculative hand and have to fold. If that is happening alot then wait until you have a premium hand and 4 or 5 bet come over the top with a big limp reraise.

For cash games I never limp if first into the pot and I will call or reraise those 3 bets from late position opponent that are reraised too wide or seem to be in every other pot limping in. Try the squeeze play, As above with speculative HANDS such as SMALL TO MEDIUM POCKET PAIRS 22-77 OR 88, lower suited connectors, Ax suited hands that if you smash the flop you will get their stack. Play from late position and the blinds but do mix it up ie raise with some of these hands from the blinds.