HELP! Is this just spew or higher variance +EV

Not sure what happened the couple hands before, seems comentators were already discussing her name. Also without a chipcount list, by the looks of it she was pretty shortstacked compared to the table.

Low stakes/high stakes, free/cash … balancing out hand strength is a common ploy used to mask ranges. You also have to be in a posistion to show such attempts or you get no credit for limp’n say AKs, or betting out 23o.

If a players rep range is AA QQ KK, and combo of the two, or any pocket pair… then untill they play and show/win that 36o hand … 36o won’t be in thier range, unless they have a prior reputation for playing such hands… conversely if a player never limps a big hand, then of course those hands wont be in thier limp range.

Personally, I hate kicker wars. So in some situations, I find it comforting to play oddball hands, just so if they hit … usually you can be confident that you arent faced in a kicker battle, usually those end badly cause neither player folds … either you’re ahead by alot , or you’re not. Plus the add’d benefit is its easy to get away from bad or complex hands.

What isn’t?

In the hand the OP posted, V clearly has a limping range because he limped. Yes, it does make sense to have some big hands in your limp range, so he COULD have aces there. If he did, he was probably kicking himself for not raising when the others limped behind. Been there, done that, lol.

Pfffft. Do these solvers and simulators understand the psychology of poker? Do they look beyond the immediate hand?

How many players will tighten their ranges too much the next time you limp from EP, folding hands they should play or llmping hands they should raise? How many pots will you pick up when you lead the flop? How many pots will you win the next time you limp rags and connect to the board with hands they can never put you on? Do your solvers and simulators ever consider any of this?

Occasionally limping big hands, especially from EP, is an investment. Like any investment, you sacrifice a little now and hope to get a big return later. It’s not always about the current hand. Since these things are hard to quantify, your solvers and simulators simply ignore them.

What’s the real worth of something that ignores some of the variables? I say it’s… pfffft.

I need to add that limping a big pair now and then isn’t just a long term strategy. It can (and often does) add dead money to the pot. This happens when someone makes a small raise and, when it gets back to you, you lower the boom and shove or put in a huge raise. When this happens, you will often get the same limited field you would have gotten with a raise (only more so) and get the benefit of a bigger pot.

Do your solvers and simulators take this into account?

Amen SPG, its like the age 'ole difference between cash games(ring) and Tournaments. In ring games its about maximizing single hands, while tournaments you must temper maximizing profit across multiple hands…

With the big disadvantage of just letting know to the whole table that you have AA. So all in all, it’s not profitable, even here.

Just avoid limping AA, just a tip, especially HERE on RP!

It almost doesn’t… of course he could, but the question is if he should. My answer is no.

I take all my words back, look at this, it’s confirmed, limping AA is +EV.

P.S. SPG, how to get the video show up like yours ? :frowning:

Limping big hands is not something you should do often, but it has to be in your bag of tricks. I would never do it in the early part of a tournament. I would never do it on a limp happy table. I will do it now and then at the start of a final table, when against aggro players who i think will raise. I don’t want to go to the flop with a mess of limpers, I want a good chance that i can re-raise preflop to limit the field as always. It takes a certain feel for the table to know when and where.

Sarah, I look at things from a longer time scale.

VF, I just copy/paste the url into the reply window without using the link button.

LOL, yup!

I don’t hate Scott Seiver, but I’m no fan. I did a quick youtube search, that was the first one I saw, so I posted it.

Ok, thanks.

1 Like

LOL - I wasn’t aware poker was an actual entity with feelings. The psychology of poker is the thing that isn’t a thing :slight_smile: No 2 players are alike and no 2 tables play the same, unless you are playing with the same 8 people every week. If you run the hand umpteen million times, vs all player types and also analyze another gazillion hands as actually played, the numbers become pretty solid. This is where baseline EV figures are developed.

If the argument is to fool people about the strength of your hand by limping, why not do the same thing by opening some bluffs as well? Don’t rely on happenstance to build a pot for you, do it yourself. Does psychology allow for people to get angry that you are opening a lot of hands? Do they then start to reraise you with weaker hands than they normally would? That becomes a lot larger pot when you do have a big hand and can 4-bet them. Bigger baseline off the open than the limp, right? Limping AA is profitable, just not the most profitable play you can make with it.

Anyway, I’ll defend the solves and databases all day long vs anyone’s estimations of the psychology of the universe. That being said, ignoring the player or population reads you have and just playing the hands as if you were in a simulator vs perfect opponents isn’t optimal poker. Take the knowledge that has been accumulated over time and apply it to the players you are facing.

1 Like

Well, now you hurt poker’s feelings.

I’m not claiming solvers and the other accountant demons are without worth. What I’m saying is that they don’t tell the whole story, so are of limited use. There’s more to the game than just math.

Well yeah. It’s not much of a bluff if all you do is check/call.

Anyway, my point was that actions in one hand can change the way things go on later hands. This can give benefits beyond the current hand, and the slide=-ule accountant gizmo thingies don’t factor this in.

1 Like

Ok, but I don’t understand. Why would you try to analyze what could be the potential abstract value of limping AA, and this in the following hands ? That’s irrelevant in deciding how good limping AA is…

My original statement was that I wouldn’t be too surprised if he had aces there. “Too surprised.” I would be surprised, but not very surprised. It’s not what i would expect, but it is possible.

The main reason you would ever limp aces is that you are fairly confident that someone will raise,. giving you the chance to jam and add dead money to the pot. 1Warlock says this isn’t the mostest +EV way to play aces, and I’m not suggesting that he is wrong. I accept that he is probably right.

The table image benefit is impossible to quantify, but it exists. The solvers and stimulators don’t take this into account, so the raw math isn’t providing a 100% accurate picture. I think the benefits of doing this once in awhile outweigh the negatives. I have no way to prove I’m right, you have no way to prove I’m wrong. If this is the case, I see no reason to keep going on about it.

If you don’t think you should ever limp a big hand, then don’t ever limp a big hand. You play your way, I’ll play my way.

OK, you asked a question, so i will try to answer it directly.

There are no abstract values. A thing either has value or it doesn’t. If it has value, it isn’t irrelevant. If it has no value, it is irrelevant.

I think it has value.

Keep in mind that this is a minor side benefit, not the main reason you would do this. The main reason is to get someone to raise so you can come over the top hard.

Just for giggles, assume our V does have aces there. If he opens, does Q3s enter the hand? No, V probably wins 1.5BB, hand over.

As played, he gets our Hero allin.

Which is more +EV?

Part of the reason you’re tough to beat is … uhhh
You will and have the rep for, playing any 2 cards any way. Plus, you know when and how much, pressure to apply at all times… In a MTT environment, cause I don’t remember seeing you playing rings. You’re a much better player than I am, and you scare the heck outta me, just like BlackWidow does.

I completely agree, that the math behind poker and the solvers themselves are just a guide… a seemingly profitable guide, but a guide none the less. Poker is just as much psychological and situational.

If player A has never seen player B “open” with crap, then crap is usually not in thier “open range” as far as player A is concerned. Just as much as AA isn’t in someone’s limp/call range if they never make that play.

@ValueFish … are you insane… irrelevant ??? And really, you’re telling SPG to ignore future value ? I think SPG can prove it, just look @ his showdown vs no showdown wins. Flat out SPG has a rep that allows him to be given credit for alot… add to that his other skills, and he’s a very dangerous opponent… “caviot emptor” let the caller beware… call SPG 1 too many times, you’re broke and on the rail… and you certainly can’t just rebuy back in… hahahahahaha.

Please add me to the list of ppl that see VALUE in making sure I vary my limps/opens, to effectively dilute your read on my hand strength. Also add me to list of ppl that believe the “math/odds” are a guide, not a rulebook.



This makes no sense. Take 1 illusional spot where limping AA would be better ?

You limp AA. Q3s limps.

Flop 10Q3 rainbow. V bets, you raise, he shoves, you call ?

Just to make my mind clear : are you assuming limping AA is +EV in general ? Ok, you can do it from time to time (which means 5% of the times), but it’s something to avoid. Why ? Because the disadvantages are crushing the possible advantages of it.

I’m not insane though…I’m not trying to explain if he’s good or bad, and I think this conversation just went in a complete wrong direction. Deep in ourselves I think we agree, not sure…
All I can say is that if SPG limps AA often, I’m glad.

Totally agree, but it’s a pretty big rulebook, that deserves to be followed, maybe not completely, but you can trust it.

Of course, I totally agree, but AA doesn’t completely fit in here, you don’t have to balance your game with a hand like AA.

Problem is that your hand just gets face up. Limp/3bet, are you going to do that with 67s ? With TT ? With AK ?
When you simply raise, your hand range is bigger than the limp/3-bet one. Do we agree with this though?

P.S. Just forget this, let’s agree to disagree.

Hmmm… How’s the weather like where you live ?

I don’t think I ever suggested any such thing. Every time, I said “now and then” or “once in awhile” or"occasionally." Didn’t I?

Yes, yes, and yes. I did it the other day, then showed 63o. Why would I do such a thing? Well, limp from early followed by a 3! looks like aces! Hahaha

LOL, sure, that may be best for all concerned. :slight_smile: