limping with aces
Paul Phillips
In article <vuvu664...@corp.supernews.com>,
DaVoice <ri...@removethisvoiceofpoker.com> wrote:
>If you like giving numerous opponents with inferior hands a "Free Shot" at
>you, go ahead and limp in with AA. If you like to win, raise or even
>RERAISE with them. IMHO limping with AA is only inviting serious trouble in
>a NLHE Tourney.
In the AC WPT event I limped with aces UTG and it was raised, re-raised,
and re-re-raised all-in behind me. If I had open-raised and been re-raised
mid-position, it would have announced enough strength to let both the
last two people get off their AK for nothing.
It is often correct to limp with aces at an aggressive table -- but you
have to limp enough other hands to disguise them, and you can't mindlessly
put the rest of your money in after the flop if it limps around. In
addition to sometimes being more immediately profitable than raising
with aces, limping also lets you limp other pairs in early position without
putting an "I am weak" sign on your forehead. That's very important
against good, aware players. I know whose early position limps are good
candidates for a raise and whose are a threat to be monsters.
I don't know why people think it's such a momentous tragedy if they
limp aces and it limps around and they then have to fold them. You
gambled someone would find a hand and give you some play, and the
gamble didn't pay off. You lost one small bet. Since nobody raised
your limp, it's very probable that all you would have won with a raise
was the blinds. These are not enormously divergent outcomes.
But more importantly, aces are still usually the best hand. There's
this paranoia that after the flop everyone else is moving all-in right
away and you won't have enough of a hand to call. In real life everyone
is correctly paranoid about putting all their money into the pot on an
unraised pot without a big hand. And that means you can escape cheaply
if you're beat, and often milk a lot of money from top pair.
>What do you do with your *limped* AA when the flop comes 3 hearts and your
>aces are black? What do you do with your "limped" AA when the flop comes
>KTJ? What about a flop coming 552 and the big blind bets out?
Fold, fold, and against most players, call or raise. Big deal. This sums
up the real reason people are so afraid to limp with aces or to raise small
enough to buy themselves some action. They're terrified of playing
poker after the flop, because it's hard and full of uncertainties, but
you know what? Aces are still usually the best hand after the flop!
And people still tell you what they have by the way they play the hand!
They don't instantly know that all you have is one pair.
>Limping with AA in a NLHE tourney is not what I would call wise.
Out of context it is neither wise nor unwise. In certain contexts it
is clearly more profitable than raising.
--
Paul Phillips | Among DEA agents, the notion of really winning the
In Theory | drug war is so far out of the question that anyone
Empiricist | who even mentions it is considered some kind of nut.
pal, i pill push | -- former DEA agent Michael Levine
The Outcast
A policy of NEVER open limping will have as good a chance at
accomplishing the objective that the act of limping with Aces is aimed
at accomplishing. Namely, to get an aggressive player to raise you so
that you can then go over the top of him.
What I mean is if you have always raised or folded with all your
hands (including occassionaly weak ones like small pairs and small
connectors), by continuing to do so with Aces you can still make someone
reraise you so that you can put him all in. Because he won't know you
have Aces this time.
Also, by making that raise you have already put more money into the
pot relative to if you just limped, there's a bigger chance that you
could pot commit the raiser.
* RGP Access & Exclusive Poker Bonuses at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
** $15 Free No Purchase Req'd at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com/gcp
Paul Phillips
The Outcast <an...@anon.org> wrote:
> A policy of NEVER open limping will have as good a chance at
>accomplishing the objective that the act of limping with Aces is aimed
>at accomplishing.
I think never open limping in NLH gives up way too much.
There are tournament levels and situations where limped pots are
very common, and the potential upside of seeing a flop is very high.
The one that comes to mind is 100-200 blinds with 25 ante. If you
are dealt a small pair UTG and play rote raise-or-fold, you will
usually have to fold. But I have been at many a table where the
chance of a raise after someone has limped is very low.
So in that circumstance you put 200 into a 525 pot with a very low
risk of losing any more than 200, but a great shot at winning a huge
pot if you flop a set. That's fantastic risk-reward... IF you have
set that situation up for yourself by limping huge hands too. And if
it goes unraised, you still can represent serious strength since a
UTG limp may have been a monster.
Compare to raising UTG with a small pair. This will often get you
into very bad situations, either being flat called or re-raised, and
now having to play the pot out of position or fold preflop after
making a larger investment. If it's raise-or-fold, then you might
agree that you usually have to fold your small pairs. But again, I
think this gives up way too much, especially because at 100-200/25
there are frequently some fairly bad players remaining.
>Namely, to get an aggressive player to raise you so
>that you can then go over the top of him.
Raising UTG shows too much strength to get a lot of people re-raising
you. Any hand that would re-raise a UTG raise is extremely likely to
also raise a UTG limp. Yes, you get more money in the pot if you are
re-raised, but it will happen much less frequently.
Robert W. Rooney
where you would want to see a flop. For instance, if you have 99 and
raise from early position after a couple have folded, you can't really
stand a big reraise and you miss out on a possible huge pot IF you would
have flopped a set.
Sometimes I try to limp with a drawing hand up front, and if somebody
blows me off the pot, then I know that if I get dealt AAs in EP later,
that might be a good time to try to limp with them. Hopefully someone
will try the same trick and then I have them.
There are also advantages to raising with most hands you come in with,
like you mentioned it disguises your big hands and sometimes being the
preflop raiser helps you to pick up small pots later.
It's a trade off, and the best course may be to vary, and to do whatever
you think is best based on the competition at the table, you current
image, how many players have folded before it gets to you, your stack
size, etc...
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
The Outcast
"There are tournament levels and situations where limped pots are
very common, and the potential upside of seeing a flop is very high.
The one that comes to mind is 100-200 blinds with 25 ante. If you
are dealt a small pair UTG and play rote raise-or-fold, you will
usually have to fold. But I have been at many a table where the
chance of a raise after someone has limped is very low."
- What do you think causes "100-200 blinds with 25 ante" to be the
kind of "level or situation" where "limped pots can be common"? What
factors contribute to this being so? What other "levels and situations"
somehow turn into situations where limped pots can also be common?
Naturally, if the players are VERY loose-passive each time the pot is
unraised, this could certainly be the case. But are there other factors
besides just having very loose passive players that may produce the kind
of situation where a lot of limped pots become common?
"So in that circumstance you put 200 into a 525 pot with a very low
risk of losing any more than 200, but a great shot at winning a huge
pot if you flop a set. That's fantastic risk-reward... IF you have
set that situation up for yourself by limping huge hands too."
- How can this offset the benefits of ALWAYS putting in 550 to 600
(otherwise folding) into the 525 pot and occassionaly winning this pot
uncontested - plus, gaining an "action player" image in the process that
could maximize the possibility of getting paid off to the max if gets
called and hits trips on the flop? While additionally having the
aggression that could allow one to steal on the flop once there is
weakness?
"Compare to raising UTG with a small pair. This will often get you
into very bad situations, either being flat called..."
- But, how can the early position privilege called the "right of
first bluff" nullify this when the late position caller only has AK and
does not hit?
"or re-raised, and
now having to play the pot out of position or fold preflop after
making a larger investment."
Agreed.
"If it's raise-or-fold, then you might
agree that you usually have to fold your small pairs."
- Yes. Unless the stacks are deep in which case I would make it
600.
>Namely, to get an aggressive player to raise you so
>that you can then go over the top of him.
"Raising UTG shows too much strength to get a lot of people re-raising
you."
- Not if I've been making enough constant small raises pre-flop to
be annoying.
The Outcast
pots
where you would want to see a flop. For instance, if you have 99 and
raise from early position after a couple have folded, you can't really
stand a big reraise and you miss out on a possible huge pot IF you would
have flopped a set."
- But if the guy is strong enough to reraise, he would have just
raised too had I just limped - thus denying me the chance to flop a set.
"Sometimes I try to limp with a drawing hand up front, and if somebody
blows me off the pot, then I know that if I get dealt AAs in EP later,
that might be a good time to try to limp with them. Hopefully someone
will try the same trick and then I have them."
- True. True. True.
"It's a trade off, and the best course may be to vary..."
I agree with the "vary" part. But my "vary" comes with a twist.
I'll still never open limp. But I will vary what hands I will open raise
with. If the stacks aren't too deep, I'll probably stick with raising in
early position with premium hands. But if the stacks are deep, I'm going
to have to open raise with 64, 53, and other garbage in order to steal
my share of the blinds, exploit implied odds (if just called) with
action image, take advantage of my aggressive stance by stealing my
share of flops, and perhaps annoying some people into eventually
reraising my future AA or KK with his 99 or AK.
DaVoice
because of the raise-reraise probability. The guy I was replying to
suggested ALWAYS limping with AA in an aggressive setting, that is what I
mainly disagreed with. As always in poker everything is "it depends",
however with my aggressive table image I may still open raise for 3x the
blind with AA UTG. "it depends".
--
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles
MARGE 2003 TOC Champion
http://www.voiceofpoker.com
The Voice of Poker on the Web
"Paul Phillips" <rgp...@improving.org> wrote in message
news:bsq1sp$hn9$1...@spoon.improving.org...
Paul Phillips
The Outcast <an...@anon.org> wrote:
> - What do you think causes "100-200 blinds with 25 ante" to be the
>kind of "level or situation" where "limped pots can be common"?
The money is still very deep relative to the blinds and antes, but the
ratio of the initial dead money to the price of a limp is very attractive
for seeing a cheap flop. That's why.
>Naturally, if the players are VERY loose-passive each time the pot is
>unraised, this could certainly be the case.
Loose-passive is a misnomer here. This isn't limit poker. A lot of
very, very good players will often intentionally keep the pot small before
the flop because they believe they will make better decisions than their
opponents after the flop. It is possible to use calling effectively in
tournament poker, conventional wisdom notwithstanding.
>But are there other factors
>besides just having very loose passive players that may produce the kind
>of situation where a lot of limped pots become common?
About halfway through the Sands $1M tournament I was at a table with
daniel negreanu and huck seed. These "loose passive" players limped a
lot of pots, as did I when I thought the occasion warranted it. That
had us tangling with one another after the flop quite a bit, but we're
all comfortable with that.
The fact that a lot of pots are limped does not mean the players are
not good. People take "raise or fold" way too far.
> - How can this offset the benefits of ALWAYS putting in 550 to 600
>(otherwise folding) into the 525 pot and occassionaly winning this pot
>uncontested
If you are raising UTG even vaguely often, you are going to start finding
yourself in the unenviable position of having people flat call your
raises and leaving you playing a raised pot out of position. If there is
one thing I have learned about tournament poker, it's that playing raised
pots out of position is the road to the rail.
> - But, how can the early position privilege called the "right of
>first bluff" nullify this when the late position caller only has AK and
>does not hit?
...and now we have a perfect example of the problem. You raise and are
flat called. The flop comes and all you have is a small pocket pair, but
you feel morally obligated to bet at it hoping your opponent has AK and
will fold. He does not fold. Now what? How far are you willing to go?
How much money do you want to bluff off with a small pair?
Sometimes I even CTS people who play like this on the flop. CTS, if
you're not familiar with that quaint expression, means "call to steal".
Call with no-hand no-draw on the principle that he's usually going to
give up on the hand after one bullet in the face of resistance from a
player with position on him. Clearly we apply that play very selectively,
but some people are so predictable.
My summary is this. I have learned to very much dislike raising with
small pairs in early position, but I am not willing to fold them because
I think it gives up too much during the ante rounds. So that only leaves
calling, and when I analyze the game holistically, I realize I must also
just call with some very big hands so I cannot easily be exploited for it.
> - Yes. Unless the stacks are deep in which case I would make it
>600.
There are plenty of good players who agree with your thoughts here, and
I used to as well. I'm not saying you're definitively wrong. But I am
sure that my altered approach to this subject was much better for my
results. If I am going to intentionally build the pot from out of
position, it's not going to be with an implied-odds, needs-the-flop sort
of hand. It's going to be with cards that figure to be the best already.
> - Not if I've been making enough constant small raises pre-flop to
>be annoying.
I'm going to give a big thumbs down to the theory that raising
frequently from early position in tournament poker can be part of an
effective strategy. Position means too much.
--
Paul Phillips | Nobody has a 'Bruce Ediger' quote in their sig -- not
Apatheist | even me.
Empiricist | -- Bruce Ediger
pp: i haul pills |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Daniel Negreanu
> The fact that a lot of pots are limped does not mean the players are
> not good. People take "raise or fold" way too far.
The "raise or fold" strategy is optimal... for beginners. For those
that want to avoid making any difficult decisions post flop this gives
them "a chance." Of course, as we've seen with most of the higher buy
in tournaments those players rarely ever win... I can't remember the
last time that's actually happened.
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Tim O
>My summary is this. I have learned to very much dislike raising with
>small pairs in early position, but I am not willing to fold them because
>I think it gives up too much during the ante rounds. So that only leaves
>calling, and when I analyze the game holistically, I realize I must also
>just call with some very big hands so I cannot easily be exploited for it.
Thanks for the analysis. I agree with the principles, but had a few
questions.
1) Do you add more than aces to your list of hands? (e.g. KK, QQ, AKs)
2) If you're only adding aces, does this provide enough "doubt" regarding
your holdings to limp UTG with small and/or middle-pairs?
3) Should this strategy change when you are in late position? (i.e. will
you open-limp with AA if you're in MP? What about the cutoff seat? )
Tim
_________________________________________________________________
The Outcast
that want to avoid making any difficult decisions post flop this gives
them "a chance." Of course, as we've seen with most of the higher buy
in tournaments those players rarely ever win... I can't remember the
last time that's actually happened."
What is your opinion about the semi-maniacal implied odds driven
strategy of making a lot of small raises with almost anything (64, 53,
Axs included)as you open from any position in a game where the money is
very deep relative to the blinds and antes? I saw O'Neil Longson do this
a lot at my table. Making an insane number of small pre-flop raises with
anything then folding when someone re-raises. Then doing it again and
again and again. One time, someone played back at him, then he
rereraised with AA and got action breaking the other guy in the process.
He also broke some people with hands like 75 and the flop went 553.
Wouldn't this hyper-aggressive never open with a limp strategy be
optimal in this kind of deep stack situation? I never saw O'Neil open
limp. Yes, he would limp along after others had already limped. But he
would never open with a limp.
* Learn Where & Where NOT to Play at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
Robert W. Rooney
you get blown off by a reraise because you have made the pot bigger. I'm
not talking about a minimum reraise which you would call, but a real
reraise of about the size of the pot (which will be much bigger than if
you had limped). Ok, so if you limp the pot is still pretty small when
someone raises the pot behind you. In this case, you can call the raise
if the raiser (or someone who has called behind) has a lot of chips and
take a flop. You might flop a nine and win a huge pot if you are lucky
enough for the raiser to have AA or KK. If you don't flop a nine, it's
pretty easy to get away because you haven't committed much.
Note that I'm not talking about the later stages of a tourney when the
blinds get big in relation to your stack.
_________________________________________________________________
Robert W. Rooney
Isn't whether to bet with nothing (or a little something) after the flop
because you were the preflop raiser a "difficult decision after the flop"?
Some raise not to avoid decisions post flop, but to have the chance to
represent a big hand and pick up pots after the flop. Are you speaking
more of the all-in or fold players? That's a bit of a different issue.
Anyway, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just want you to
clarify what you mean.
Thanks!
_________________________________________________________________
Paul Phillips
Tim O <anon...@excitenetwork.com> wrote:
>1) Do you add more than aces to your list of hands? (e.g. KK, QQ, AKs)
Yes, I limp most of my playable hands up front on the premise that
I should be grateful to keep the pot small when I'm probably going
to be out of position throughout the hand.
>3) Should this strategy change when you are in late position? (i.e. will
>you open-limp with AA if you're in MP? What about the cutoff seat? )
I never open-limp in mid-position during the ante rounds (MP being
anything after UTG+2) because the chance to take the blinds uncontested
has gone up enormously compared to early position. Taking the blinds
is a minor failure with AA, but obviously I don't usually have AA when
I raise from mid-position, and I'm not going to limp other hands to
provide cover for AA there because there's more value in stealing.
Raising in mid-position with AA is also fine because it shows much
less strength than raising UTG, so you are more likely to be played
back at.
Oddly enough, I don't open-limp in mid-position, but I will on the button
against certain players in the blinds. The reasoning there is totally
different -- button raises are usually assumed to be weak, and I dislike
raising when I look weak and AM weak. So I'll limp and see what they do,
often calling a raise if they issue it and making them play the raised
pot out of position. If I open-raise the button, the size of a raise
from the blinds may be too big for me to fade.
I usually have a hand to go a long ways with with if I raise the button
(and also sometimes if I limp it). There may be better ways to play the
button but I know I was getting killed overplaying hands there for a
long time, so I decided to stop doing that. I would suppose I fold
the button with no action in front of me more frequently than the huge
majority of tournament players.
--
Paul Phillips | Must I accept the axiom of choice?
Moral Alien |
Empiricist |
all hip pupils! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
ShaunBKGB
anyway, is a highly effective strategy, as long as you don't always limp with
these hands. Never limping is actually a terrible strategy.
Here's why: If you plan on playing suited connectors, Ax suited, and pairs like
22-77, you would do well to limp with them much of the time. If you ONLY limp
with these hands, and ONLY raise with AK, AA, KK, QQ etc., players who are
worth a damn will have some degree of information about your play that they
needn't have.
Sure, if you always raised with any hand you entered the pot with you'd be
playing agressively and that is always nice. But it would also put your
opponents in situations where they would re-raise you more liberally. Sure,
this would be good whe you held the top hands, but when you held QQ or worse
you could get into situations that are needlessly difficult. It is never good
to hold to stringent rules like always raise in a no limit game, where
deception is key.
Daniel Negreanu
>
> What is your opinion about the semi-maniacal implied odds driven
> strategy of making a lot of small raises with almost anything (64, 53,
> Axs included)as you open from any position in a game where the money is
> very deep relative to the blinds and antes?
This would be the optimal strategy... for excellent players.
>
> Wouldn't this hyper-aggressive never open with a limp strategy be
> optimal in this kind of deep stack situation? I never saw O'Neil open
> limp. Yes, he would limp along after others had already limped. But he
> would never open with a limp.
O'Neil does limp too... he does like the minimum raise more often,
but he will limp as well in certain situations if he "feels like it".
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
>
Daniel Negreanu
> Hey Daniel,
>
> Isn't whether to bet with nothing (or a little something) after the flop
> because you were the preflop raiser a "difficult decision after the flop"?
Of course it is. It is a decision that excellent players will get
right more often than average players will.
> Some raise not to avoid decisions post flop, but to have the chance to
> represent a big hand and pick up pots after the flop. Are you speaking
> more of the all-in or fold players? That's a bit of a different issue.
Kind of, but not really. Even those looking to "represent" with
their raises are going to over bet pre flop and post flop. While they
won't be giving anyone the right price to suck out, they will also
trap themselves when they are beat.
> Anyway, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just want you to
> clarify what you mean.
Cool, sometimes I don't always clarify it. Takes a lot more writing
to explain EXACTLY what I mean. This is an interesting topic, and my
blanket statement didn't give it justice... although I do still stick
behind it :-)
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Russ Georgiev
> In article <3ff194d6$0$66091$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> Tim O <anon...@excitenetwork.com> wrote:
> >1) Do you add more than aces to your list of hands? (e.g. KK, QQ, AKs)
>
> Yes, I limp most of my playable hands up front on the premise that
> I should be grateful to keep the pot small when I'm probably going
> to be out of position throughout the hand.
>
> >3) Should this strategy change when you are in late position? (i.e. will
> >you open-limp with AA if you're in MP? What about the cutoff seat? )
>
> I never open-limp in mid-position during the ante rounds (MP being
> anything after UTG+2) because the chance to take the blinds uncontested
> has gone up enormously compared to early position. Taking the blinds
> is a minor failure with AA, but obviously I don't usually have AA when
> I raise from mid-position, and I'm not going to limp other hands to
> provide cover for AA there because there's more value in stealing.
> Raising in mid-position with AA is also fine because it shows much
> less strength than raising UTG, so you are more likely to be played
> back at.
>
> Oddly enough, I don't open-limp in mid-position, but I will on the button
> against certain players in the blinds. The reasoning there is totally
> different -- button raises are usually assumed to be weak,
Tell Phil H button raises are usually assumed to be weak, I think he's
under a different impression. This is why I state stealing on the
button is not one of the better moves in poker.
Russ Georgiev
www.pokermafia.com CAN U DIG IT?