Articles Poker Forums

Simple...yet superb.

It's common "knowledge" to raise instead of limp but you've quantified it brilliantly and i've picked up a couple reasons for raising that i didn't have before

nice article Krantz, don't be afraid to post more strategy in the future =]

"The idea of raising vs limping directly correlates to the idea of switching
gears, or changing tempo during your session. Still something that not many
people have figured out how to do effectively... maybe I'll write more about
that topic in the future. "

The future is now!!

Simple...yet superb.

It's common "knowledge" to raise instead of limp but you've quantified it brilliantly and i've picked up a couple reasons for raising that i didn't have before

nice article Krantz, don't be afraid to post more strategy in the future =]

exactly!

This article does not give me reason to believe limping is bad. However, it does make several strong points in favour of raising. This is not enough to discredit limping; saying, "Apples are great," does not imply that Oranges are nasty. There may be many untapped ways to stack people or steal pots with marginal hands in limped pots that people just haven't figured out yet. Although this is good advice, and in most cases raising is never going to be far wrong, it is far from obvious that limping is bad.

One example of a player against whom it is profitable to play in a limped pot would be one who will call any bet size on the flop if he has top pair. Why not start limping hands like QJo, knowing that he will call a 5x bet on a Qxx flop with hands like Q3o that he might otherwise have folded? It gets even easier if he leads his strong hands into you on the turn but check/calls with his medium strength hands. Giving them a 100% range OOP doesn't have to make life harder, although you might have to be more accurate with your value betting to get max value.

How about limping versus an opponent you strongly suspect will make a 5x raise to your show of "weakness"? It doesn't take a genius to realise that some hands play much better against a polarised range from the get-go. Limp-re-raising is a no brainer in these spots as well with certain hands, especially at certain stack depths. Think outside the box.

This article does not give me reason to believe limping is bad. However, it does make several strong points in favour of raising. This is not enough to discredit limping; saying, "Apples are great," does not imply that Oranges are nasty. There may be many untapped ways to stack people or steal pots with marginal hands in limped pots that people just haven't figured out yet. Although this is good advice, and in most cases raising is never going to be far wrong, it is far from obvious that limping is bad.

One example of a player against whom it is profitable to play in a limped pot would be one who will call any bet size on the flop if he has top pair. Why not start limping hands like QJo, knowing that he will call a 5x bet on a Qxx flop with hands like Q3o that he might otherwise have folded? It gets even easier if he leads his strong hands into you on the turn but check/calls with his medium strength hands. Giving them a 100% range OOP doesn't have to make life harder, although you might have to be more accurate with your value betting to get max value.

How about limping versus an opponent you strongly suspect will make a 5x raise to your show of "weakness"? It doesn't take a genius to realise that some hands play much better against a polarised range from the get-go. Limp-re-raising is a no brainer in these spots as well with certain hands, especially at certain stack depths. Think outside the box.

You make some good points, but your initial argument is flawed. If you choose Oranges > Apples, then you eat your Orange and you're happy. It has no effect on anything else. However, limping and raising are connected. If you choose limping, you are saying that raising is not as good here, limping is better. One is better, therefore one is worse. There is an opportunity cost involved in choosing one over the other whereas by choosing oranges you don't lose anything other than sweet sweet applesauce.

This article does not give me reason to believe limping is bad. However, it does make several strong points in favour of raising. This is not enough to discredit limping; saying, "Apples are great," does not imply that Oranges are nasty. There may be many untapped ways to stack people or steal pots with marginal hands in limped pots that people just haven't figured out yet. Although this is good advice, and in most cases raising is never going to be far wrong, it is far from obvious that limping is bad.

One example of a player against whom it is profitable to play in a limped pot would be one who will call any bet size on the flop if he has top pair. Why not start limping hands like QJo, knowing that he will call a 5x bet on a Qxx flop with hands like Q3o that he might otherwise have folded? It gets even easier if he leads his strong hands into you on the turn but check/calls with his medium strength hands. Giving them a 100% range OOP doesn't have to make life harder, although you might have to be more accurate with your value betting to get max value.

How about limping versus an opponent you strongly suspect will make a 5x raise to your show of "weakness"? It doesn't take a genius to realise that some hands play much better against a polarised range from the get-go. Limp-re-raising is a no brainer in these spots as well with certain hands, especially at certain stack depths. Think outside the box.

limping in front of a pfr monster with the intention of 3betting big (optimally with coldcallers in between) is certanly a decent play (for example short/midstackedin a turney i like that much more then openraising) sure the original post is good, points out why raising is the best play close to allways pre first to act, but as said no generell rules possible in poker.