just so we all know…
What is +EV ( + extra value ) ???
It’s a pretty key term in poker. The best is to go read some sites where they explain it, but it means “Expected Value”.
Dude, you’re just crazy, why couldn’t you have said this at the beginning lol ? I really want to play HU with you, would be fun man.
I have not been on in about a week or so as I’ve been pretty busy. I am at the moment going through this thread and reviewing comments/replies and will post some retorts and then results. Hold on tight. Coming soon!
1 Like
I don’t have a detailed description of V. I was hoping we could use generalization to come up with a limp strategy in his spot knowing he is a top 10 player and obviously not a “Replay Fish”
Yeah, you may be right but I’m not going to say this is definite fold right now. My bad, I neglected to give table dynamics but there are two pretty bad players in the blinds. I do think it’s open or fold though for sure, should never be limping here.
these play better in HU or 3 way pots, I don’t think they make great over limps on 5 handed tables. Maybe at FR with 3-4 limpers to you in the CO or BTN. My opinion.
I think you mean calling not limping here right? I agree 100% though, the biggest issue for me raising here is that I just can’t rep much at all. I think I should be flatting 100% of my continuing range here.
I still agree with this, if I 4! it should be a shove.
But what positions and stack sizes does this range pertain to? I mean these spots are broken down very specifically by position and stack depths.
He’s 2 OTB though, semantics. 40-50% seems excessive for a limp range 5 handed. I agree he should have limps from top of range to balance if he has a limp range which he obviously does, I’m just not sure he’s actually doing that though. I’ll be on the look out in the future.
I don’t know.
Agreed. I’ll come back to your 4. and 5. in my next post.
I can understand that. TBH I think I was being a bit results oriented with the latter statement concerning V’s “weak unbalanced range”
I don’t know if this is the guy, could be. The results do not contradict these statements if he is. 
Can’t argue with any of this. I will post my thinking at the time and some range analysis in a bit. I’ve done my best to be objective.
I do think we can definitely call the 3! getting 2:1 direct odds with implied odds/bluff opportunities on later streets.
I don’t think we can raise/fold the second nut flush draw this deep. Pot would be 11.5M with 23M back. Sure there are some RIO but it just still seems to exploitable to fold this exact hand and we’re blocking the nuts and have a gut shot to a wheel as well. If V has Ksxs we have 9 clean outs to pairs and straights and position.
100%
LOL
Solvers play based on theory, so as far as they’re concerned psychology doesn’t matter as they’re trying to play in a way that can not be exploited. They do look beyond the hand, they’re making plays based on the ranges being input. They’re only as good as the operator is at accurately estimating the ranges that are being input.
They do, solvers aren’t necessarily saying these limps are not profitable because they are. They just simply think that they are less profitable than opening them to begin with.
There are spots for this kind of play but they are very specific. It’s very difficult to implement a LRR strategy that is both balanced and more profitable than simply opening the hand within a normal range construction.
This THIS this people… BINGO BANGO BONGO! I hope @1Warlock doesn’t hate Mike S. lol.
LOL, sorry Guru but very small sample size. I’ll admit I butchered this hand pretty badly but it could have went down the same way had he opened for 3 BB’s. After I get done with this maybe I’ll come back to this hypothetical for a thought experiment.
Exactly, solvers can and do provide a base line optimal strategy from which we can develop fundamental strategies. Where exploit comes in is when we deviate from this base line to make plays that either exploit specific tendencies of players based off information we’ve gleaned from history with that player or the tendencies of the field in general that we’re currently playing in.
Excuse me if I’m wrong here, but this all comes off very aggressively. I think that you’re misinterpreting what @ValueFish is saying in reply to @SunPowerGuru and I don’t believe he is in no way at all calling into question Guru’s style of play or his skills/abilities as a player. Maybe a lighter approach would be nicer in the future. I digress.
AA is +EV no matter the position, no matter the stack sizes, no matter the number of players seeing the flop. AA will ALWAYS be +EV pre flop. No ifs ands or buts about it.
EV is Expected Value… it is essentially the value that what ever play you’re making will earn you in the pot that is currently on the table. The formula looks like this…
EV = (W%$W) - (L%$L) I can give an example with the numbers filled in if you’d like Sassy!
Cheers everyone, more to come.
2 Likes
Okay, so I was hoping to get some input on what we all thought a limp range might look like from V’s in this spot. I just didn’t expect to see this particular villain having a limp range playing 5 handed on a 6 max table. Even more so considering the fishes in the SB and BB, I would think he’d want to be isoing these players pretty wide. My thinking was that it might look something like this… but admittedly I didn’t have a good grasp on what his range would look like here.
When he limped I just kind of limped along on auto piolet thinking I can see a flop for cheap with a semi decent suited Q as the blinds were not going to be getting OOL very often if ever. I realize this is pretty bad logic and I should be letting this hand go or opening it to a decent sizing to iso them myself. I’ll have a little more on this at the end.
On the flop I think this is a very clear call having position in a limp pot. I think a raise would play better from OOP as a x/r. I do think V would be leading a lot of his limp range in this limp pot on the flop to take initiative in the hand as it’s hard for a wide limping range to continue on this board and the BB is 100% range so will have missed this board completely a large majority of the time. As you can see from the range chart I posted I gave him a liberal limp range of 333 combos pre flop.
The leading range I gave him looks like this… all top pair or better, flush draws, open ended straight draws, and back door flush draws including of course all combo draws with pairs.
This consist of 121 combos of the 333 he started with so slightly more than 33% of his range.
My thinking at the time was that he should be leading with a lot of stuff here that can’t with stand a raise and if he does call I can x back turns for cheap rivers or continue in a bigger pot on favourable turn cards. Also I’m likely to have 12 clean outs most of the time. I will say in real time I didn’t think he’d be limping a lot of suited K’s, I wouldn’t be so I didn’t give him many of those combos. I certainly did not expect to be 3! very often but probably didn’t consider enough of what I rep with this raise. UGH. I don’t know if he’s leading this wide but at the time it seemed reasonable to me. Against this range I’m doing okay with this hand having the best hand about 41% and 59% equity when it goes to the river.
Condensing his range after he 3! is ugh. I should be taking lower variance lines with this V until I have more history especially considering we’re shot taking a little bigger than I’m really comfortable with at this stage with my bankroll. I think with the SPR what it is I can just call this 3! and try to realize my equity getting 2:1 on a call and implied odds with 23M back. I have his 3! range something like this…
This consist of sets or better, nut flush draws, combo draws flush + pair and flush + oesd’s. This takes his combos from 121 to just 21 remaining. This leaves me with the best hand now only 5% of the time against this range. I do however reserve a 37% share of the equity in the pot by the river.
I think calling 3.9 to win a pot with 11.7 is the way to go. I don’t think the 4! is as bad as it looks but would be better as a shove maxing out fold equity if I have any at all… lol.
Cheers everyone… I’ll have a much shorter post with results and final thoughts in a bit.
EDIT: if anyone has questions on these charts… shoot. I will add that the top of the limp range I gave villain is 20% of the combos of KK+, AKs and AKo.
1 Like
RESULTS and FINAL THOUGHTS
I come down agreeing with most of you that this is pretty spewy. I think the two biggest mistakes were limping pre and raising the flop when I had position. In a limp pot there was absolutely no reason to get in 150 bb’s on the flop with the 2nd nut flush draw and gutter. As played though I think the 4! is not as bad as it looks but a shove would have been better than 3x. This of course is dependent on V actually having some semi bluffs in his 3! range. If he does not I will figure that out soon enough and exploit it to max EV in pots with him.
Just some personal reflection, not excuses I swear but take it as you will. I do have a tendency to get way OOL at times. I try to keep this in check most of the time. My problem is that I have a very limited amount of time to play on Replay with my schedule. Most of the time I’m playing following a 12-16 hour day (these can occasionally be longer btw) and can only squeeze in an hour (or two if I want to get way OOL in real life… lol). I do need to sleep some too so I’ll play while I’m catching dinner and winding down. Because of this dynamic I tend to push a little harder to get hands in and will go off at times which is not really conducive to my mental state as I’ll be exhausted a lot of the time.
Another think is that while I know these are play money chips I still want to do well. As long as I’m going to be playing on Replay I would like to be working my way into the top 50, 30, 20, 10 and so on. This effects the way I play. Due to my style of play I am often on the table for more than my initial buy in and I will fire 3 max buy ins when need be. I’m very okay with that at the 20/40 and semi okay at the 50/100 but I definitely would be negatively affected if I dropped 90M (close to 20%) of my bank roll shot taking 100/200. Basically I’m scared money on these tables not only because the stakes are so high but the competition is better as well. This has a negative affect on how I’m playing on these tables, I’m not playing my game the way I like to play. I’m out of rhythm and don’t think as sharply. I’ll probably try to avoid the 100/200 until I’m approaching 1B in the future, although I’ve tried to avoid it but the 50/100 doesn’t seem to go as often.
Cheers everyone… thanks for watching! Goodnight now!
1 Like
Flabergasted… Gobsmacked…Shocked…
dayman, I was not harsh to valuefish… and I was passionately defending SPG. ( with my opinion ) If I read what I wrote in 3 different ways, out loud, it has 3 different meanings… Text only, looses any inflection of voice clues as to how to interpret meaning.
Even Ring players vary thier play so that down the line they get paid off… thats future value… and its different than expected value, cauise thats inside a hand.
No matter what I say, someone takes it the wrong way… not my fault.
This is true, it’s just the messages between you and VF have been kind of testy. That’s how I read them anyway.
I mean sure, it’s probably semantics here. We’re just not agreeing on how it’s described or in some cases implemented. I think the hang up here is that it comes off sounding like an argument on how to play this specific hand whereas we like to think about how to play our entire range. If you think and SPG think that limping AA or LRR AA is a sound profitable strategy then have at it. Is it profitable, hell yeah it is, 90% of the poker world would say it’s not the highest EV way to play them. I think that SPG did clarify that he’s saying under certain circumstances or table/player dependant situations it can be better to open limp with AA. I don’t think anyone here would disagree with that. It is very hard balance an open limping range though is all.
The thing is that theory is theory and none of it proven or factual. So we can disagree and we should be able to do it in forums where the sole purpose of the conversation is to discuss strategy and help each other get better at the game.
I wouldn’t take things here too personally, like you said context and tone can be easily misinterpreted in text only conversation.
Right, but you took that out of context. I was saying that limping AA isn’t always more +EV than opening. If I thought it was, I would have said you should always limp them, which isn’t even close to what I said. I guess i could have been clearer on that point, but we were going back and forth and I assumed he would know what I meant since I had already agreed that opening is usually more +EV.
Some of you seem to be thinking that the goal of doing this is to get to a limped flop, but that’s not the point at all. Obviously, that’s the worst possible outcome.
It’s very situational. You can SOMETIMES limp AA from UTG, possibly UTG +1, if, and only if, you have reason to believe that a few others might limp AND that Co or BTN or one of the blinds will raise AND if those in between will then fold rather than being caught between the 2 aggressors. When it gets back to you, you either jam or raise enough to still get heads up, but will now have some extra dead money in the pot. The dead money and initial BTN raise makes it more +EV than simply opening, at least in my mind.
If someone is the type of player who is just strolling along humming, “We Are The Champions” while stating at their shoes, they should never even consider limping aces.
Of course it’s a small sample size, we are talking about 1 specific hand! LOL So if I am reading you right, you now say that Q3s shouldn’t be in your limp range, but it should be in your raise calling range? I don’t even know what to say about that.
Did I miss something? I see lots of charts and graphs and fine visual aids of all kinds, but I still don’t know what he had or how the board ran out. I can sort of infer that he had KXs and beat you with a better flush, but it would be nice to know for sure. If you did post it somewhere up there, my bad.
Also I see that I said he would be limping %40 - %59 of his hands, which is obviously not correct. I should have said he might be playing that many hands. If you subtract out the hands he would open, you get a very skinny set of hands he might limp.
So something like 22, 33 some of his smaller suited connectors, maybe some smaller KXs combos… not many hands at all. I don’t see him limping the very top of his range that often, and even than mostly trap/limping only AA and possibly KK on rare occasions.
RESULTS
Opps, my bad… V had 3c2d which I obviously am not giving him all these combos of off suit 32. The board ran out AdQd and he scooped it.
1 Like
@SunPowerGuru I don’t know that we’re not just talking in circles here. I did agree with you that there are times when limping AA would be the best play if not the outright most EV over opening/raising. They are just very specific spots. I believe I also stated that if you have a limp range you should balance it with the top of your range at some frequency. Other than that I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I believe we’re better off balancing our strongest hands by adding more bluffs as a part of our holistic strategy as @1Warlock stated. Limping AA to exploit a specific villain at the table is an exploitative play that we can use as a deviation from our standard to take advantage of an obviously weak opponent and/or to use this opponent as leverage against other players at the table.
Yes, we were sort of talking in circles then. It’s not something you want to do often, and it is an exploitative move against a specific player in a very small number of situations.
You were AWOL, most of what I said was directed at VF, who didn’t think it was ever a good play. You and I seem to be in agreement, and order has been restored to the universe. All is well.
1 Like
Hmmm nah, not my opinion. It can be a good play, but you should do it once in 50 times. I feel like you would do it a lot more often, but if it’s not the case it’s all good! We agree too, like I said 
1 Like
Please… You didn’t have to defend him, I was not attacking him.
Let’s just forget this and like each other again
VF
1 Like
Yes, I do it a lot. In fact, every time I limp I either have aces or (rarely) kings. It would be foolish to even think about raising me when I limp. The only safe thing to do is take the flop and fold unless you flop something that beats aces AND kings. Otherwise, you are just flirting with disaster!
1 Like
Thanks for the secret buddy
There are times when if want any value
whatsoever, you have to check/limp/call.
While AA might be the best starting hand, its still just another pocket pair. With that go all the trappings of such a hand. All too often players get invested with hands that they can then no longer get away from, thus lose considerable amounts of chips. Its much easier to lay down AA if the board texture just isn’t good for AA, if you have less invested in the pot.
Lets look at this from an intimidation factor against apparent strength.
Take a player who may fold to mid raises, they open with AA ( strength ) and the flop brings any of the hands that just dont play well for AA… or even KK or AK… So the player with strength preflop, checks. Its much easier to think a psychological bluff against such a player will succeed, therefore its more likely that someone still in the hand makes that play as it checks around, and believes they have just bluff’d someone off a good hand, or that that person will fold a good hand that miss’d the flop.
Contrast that with limp’n AA and possibly get a limp flop. Then on the exact same board, anyone betting out now is betting into blind strength , so less likely to get the bluff… and the person who limped AA ( since they still have equity ) has more legitimate plays that might work out. Plus, if someone does bet out and they fold AA, its just another hand someone limped that they folded. Noone knows you folded AA to a bluff bet.
It doesnt really matter what it is, once your opposition thinks “wait I’ve seen that 1 too many times before” and folds, or doesn’t raise … then the value of any prior play, including limp’n AA, comes to fruition. Either you have the rep for or you earn that rep on/in each table/MTT you play… or prepare to get shoved around… all day and twice on Sunday.
This is why I truly believe Tournament players play better in Rings, than Ring players do in tournaments. ( in general across all levels ). Thats a (opinion) judgement call only on potential sucess… So save all the letters to the editor…lolololol. There are a select group of players that are equally impressive in both Rings and MTTs, those players scare the heck outta me and have my respect.
… I luv a good disaster…
1 Like
100BB effective. MP, with the understanding that the range could be expanded or contracted based on several variables. I highly recommend that people read the strategy articles from Upswing that relate to low stakes games. There have been several good ones regarding dealing with limpers recently.
It is. There is only 1 player that fits the description who would limp 3/2o.
Yes, you absolutely can, once you have the player specific read. Of course you can avoid the whole debate by mucking those raggedy suited hands preflop. Don’t get sloppy just because you’re pressed for time.
I’m glad you agree. The whole “I’m limping to be deceptive” thing is just weak, IMO. Late stage MTT’s where you are trying to goad a weaker hand into shoving on you is one thing but with deeper stacks its horrible. Limping AA/KK/AK will always be lower EV than opening these hands, assuming any competence at the table. BTW, Mike Sexton is awesome in my book. Old school tough player.
2 Likes