Developing a balanced limp range

ArtArtBobartArtArtBobart Red Chipper Posts: 333 ✭✭
edited January 25 in General Concepts
Currently I never limp into a pot. I'm considering whether it would be worthwhile to construct a balanced limping range. This is because I'd rather not *always* bloat the pot in EP with small pairs or even in late position with hands like 98o.

Currently my ranges are essentially those found in The Course. After discussion at the RCP meetup I can see that blindly throwing out options such as limping can handcuff us in certain situations.

As I understand it, if we are to implement such a plan we need to break our ranges in to limp/fold, limp/call, and limp/raise.

Questions:

1. What limp/(fold/call/raise) ranges make sense in each position?
2. How do the number of limpers affect the ranges if in later position?
3. Additionally would you randomize whether or not you limp or open with a given range/position? E.g., in EP you would not always limp AA. How would you determine the percentage of times you limp vs times you raise?
4. How would the type of players in the lineup affect this strategy?
5. What advantages/disadvantages do you see to doing this?
«1

Comments

  • JesseJesse Red Chipper Posts: 133
    I'd say that if you were in a very loose, friendly home game that raising with the more speculative side of your opening range may be undesirable. There's not really a point in bloating a pot with Axs or connectors or small pairs that will often go 5 way raised and nobody will punish you by iso-raising (because of the multiway effect).

    In these situations, you may consider making smallish raises in position to build a pot when you stand a better than average opportunity to take it down without having to flop a real hand.

    You can probably still make abnormally large sized raises with big pairs because you'll still get action. Mostly shove all your money in on the flop.

    =====

    If you're in a particularly aggressive game and you have opponents that will attack limps and barrel against you, you may consider a limping strategy with medium strong+ hands that they'll have trouble putting you on. However, once they see you have AA or KK or something like that, the jig is up.

    You'll often be playing OOP against a lot of aggression, and you'll still be put in tough spots -- except that since you're playing passively, you'll need to win at showdown. You'll need some way to mix in check/raise semi-bluffs if you're going this route.

    =====

    Other notes:
    In California, limping into pots is very bad. The drop (as opposed to a 10% rake) means that the moment a flop is dealt, the casino takes $6~7. In a 2/5 blind game, if you limp and it folds to the blinds, they'll often ask you to "chop" (otherwise $7+$5 - $7 = $5 pot on the flop) -- therefore you just gave 8 other players a free opportunity to find AA and raise you. Min-raising may be a better alternative if you're trying to adopt some kind of limp strategy.
  • tfaziotfazio Red Chipper Posts: 759 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2016
    I feel that open limping can be bad. I do however think a limp after limp range can be OK. In certain WP 1/2 games you can get a limp after thru whenever you like. In games where limps are attacked regularly it not wise. That being said 22-77, A2s-A9s, KTo-KJo, 76s-T9s, seems a place to start. Its very player, position and table dependent. Not a good way to get action going seems like a WP nitty trait. IMHO
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭✭
    Tfazio,

    Why is open limping bad?
  • ChipXtractorChipXtractor Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭
    Tfazio,

    Why is open limping bad?

    Yes! The hook is in my friends... Do not let this opportunity pass.
    Twitter = @ChipXtractor
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭✭
    Tfazio,

    Why is open limping bad?

    Yes! The hook is in my friends... Do not let this opportunity pass.

    I'm just curious. Besides Doug Hull & Ed Miller proclaiming to never limp, why is it bad?
  • ChipXtractorChipXtractor Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2016
    Tfazio,

    Why is open limping bad?

    Yes! The hook is in my friends... Do not let this opportunity pass.

    I'm just curious. Besides Doug Hull & Ed Miller proclaiming to never limp, why is it bad?

    I will give it a shot at answering the question... for the sake of getting the discussion rolling. Here is what I believe some of the general reasons are that people prefer not to limp.

    1) It makes the hand more difficult to play.
    2) It does *not* help clarify my opponents holdings (range).
    3) It allows me to be isolated by aggressive opponents.
    4) It puts me in 'bluff catching' mode.
    5) It concedes the initiative to my opponents.
    6) It allows my opponents to play wider ranges against me in position (see 1&2 above).
    7) It will generally result in me playing a multi-way pot OOP with no way to narrrow my opponents holdings.
    8) It makes the hand more difficult to play because I do not understand the how or even why I would be limping. I have a poor understanding of what I am trying to accomplish by limping... so I avoid doing so.
    9) etc, etc, etc

    ** For the record I am still trying to understand the concepts we generally talked about this past week Christian. I do not yet have the ability to employ a balanced limping range nor even understand why or when I should be doing so. The above 'reasons' for not limping are just generally what I would expect to be some of the most common given.

    cXt

    Twitter = @ChipXtractor
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭✭
    "Have a poor understanding of what I'm trying to accomplish by limping, so I avoid doing so"...

    This was the best thing you said & and the true reason why people do not limp. They have not thought out that tree yet.
  • ArtArtBobartArtArtBobart Red Chipper Posts: 333 ✭✭
    Turning Christian's question around, why would limping be GOOD?

    My initial thoughts:

    1. I can play hands I want to play that I might otherwise fold because I don't necessarily want to create a huge pot but think I have the proper post-flop skills to play them correctly if not raised pre-flop. Additionally, I might not want to be in the position that people can say "he doesn't have hand XX in his range here."

    2. If someone raises behind it's as if someone else is raising as proxy for me. I still get the raise in as before, only someone else is doing the heavy lifting. I can save money without the expectation that I must c-bet (costing me more) and conceivably can still hide my range. Ultimately I can speculate more at a lower cost. Especially when it is not raised behind me.

    3. I can be a sheep in wolf's clothing: I am limping for the *correct* reasons yet appear to be limping for reasons like all the other players. My limps make more money than their limps.

    Not sure if it makes sense, but that's what I came up with.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 884 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2016
    Tfazio,

    Why is open limping bad?

    Yes! The hook is in my friends... Do not let this opportunity pass.

    I'm just curious. Besides Doug Hull & Ed Miller proclaiming to never limp, why is it bad?

    @Christian Soto I have an answer to this. The first part of the answer has to with the structure of NLHE; the second part, has only to do with $1-$2 alone; the third part concerns social norms; and the briefest answer (but most important to me) has to with the rake at underground games.

    I never limped and it had nothing to do with Miller and Hull. It had more to do with what my grandmother taught me about stud poker than with anything else.

    Why do you ante in a poker game? To buy the cards; also, so that there is something in the pot at the beginning. The ante was developed to sweeten the pot because nobody would give action. NLHE doesn't have that problem. (Similarly, why are there antes in tournament NLHE? It is to force the action and make it harder for players to play tight. It is the same reason why the blinds increase.)

    Cash Games in NLHE do not have antes; they have blinds.

    To treat the Big Blind as an ante to see the Flop is simply treating the game as if you are playing stud with community cards. This is how, at lower levels, all of those limpers treat NLHE. So you try to exploit them. But the BB is not an ante to see the flop it is simply bait for action in front.

    In another thread I wrote about Mr. 80%. He found a way to exploit limp fests.

    Now, I don't think that limping is bad-as-such. It is just usually, and almost always bad, in a game where limping is used as an ante as it is at many of the tables where I play.

    @Christian Soto I think you are so used to playing with decent players that you have forgotten the enforced social norm that develops around limping... especially in home games at the $1-$2 level. At such a game you really have a binary choice; always limp or never limp. This may sound funny that I speak in such absolute terms but the only reason to limp in such games is to obey the social norm and soothe all the people who think that a Big Blind is equivalent to an Ante in stud.

    Limping strategically in such games, and trying to develop a range that is not forked into a limping range and a raising range, is self-defeating. There are no balanced limping ranges at $1-$2.

    Finally, when playing in the underground NYC games I don't limp because of the rake. Limping into the pot never beats the rake. This is what I saw at my very first underground game.

    So when I get into better games, at higher stakes, with less rake %, I will develop the limping range that I'm already thinking about.

    P.S. If you think I'm categorically against limping you should read the thread about Mr. 80% and how he was the best limper I ever saw. He had a balanced limping range. He simply always limped and never open raised. He was a very interesting player.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 884 ✭✭✭
    There might be another reason not to limp. It is much harder to develop a plan for your hand if you limp. If you limp and you go multi-way with 7 others the plan is often fit-or-fold.

    I think you have to be a lot better player than I am to develop a plan for your hand if you limp and other people limp in front.

    Notice, this is not about whether it is good to limp or not. This is about my level skill. In other words it is a strategic choice at my skill level to not put myself into a box by limping in to multi-way pots.

    It is similar to the advice I give to young chess players who are not tactically minded: Play closed openings in tournaments and play openings that will get you into tactical trouble when you are practicing.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 884 ✭✭✭
    You know I realize that I didn't answer the question that opened this thread: Developing a limping range.

    There are hands I would three bet if the stacks were deep, for instance 75 suited and A5 suited. These hands I would limp in with from late position in short stacked games. But only if I had the skill edge to play this way.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭✭
    Carroters said this which make a lot of sens to me.

    " Open limping gives up any possibility of pre-flop fold equity, which as we know, constitutes one of our most stable and essential flows of EV in 6- max cash games.
     Open limping seizes no initiative and allows players behind us to raise and gain the initiative instead. This puts them in a situation where they can c-bet post-flop and apply pressure to win more than their fair share of pots should we both miss the flop. We’d rather be the ones achieving this.
     Open limping fails to thin the field and invites multiway pots, devaluing our post-flop holdings and making it more difficult to take down pots.
     Open limping fails to build a pot for value when we have a strong hand or favorable situation of some sort".

  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭✭
    All of what is being said there is fair. But also very basic.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 2,778 ✭✭✭✭✭
    " Open limping gives up any possibility of pre-flop fold equity, which as we know, constitutes one of our most stable and essential flows of EV in 6- max cash games.

    Does one open limp to induce preflop folds?
     Open limping seizes no initiative and allows players behind us to raise and gain the initiative instead. This puts them in a situation where they can c-bet post-flop and apply pressure to win more than their fair share of pots should we both miss the flop. We’d rather be the ones achieving this.

    If we know they are cbetting more "than their share of pots," can someone name a possible counter strategy?
     Open limping fails to thin the field and invites multiway pots, devaluing our post-flop holdings and making it more difficult to take down pots.

    So you're saying the more skilled player will win more pots.
     Open limping fails to build a pot for value when we have a strong hand or favorable situation of some sort".

    You mean they'll never raise when we limp? And just what streets invite the biggest bets?

    *****
    I'm giving you more grief than you deserve, of course, but consider this, Roper, when everyone knows what Carroters knows and all the winds are against you, what will the adjustment then become?
  • dirty moosedirty moose Red Chipper Posts: 480 ✭✭✭
    All of what is being said there is fair. But also very basic.

    I do really wanna hear your response. "The not so basic" response.

    In the mean time, does a capped 1/2 or 2/5 game, need more than basic?

    That's a legit question. Not a statement.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2016
    I think the notion of 1/2 & 2/5 not needing more than basic is becoming somewhat of an excuse.
    What if someone were handed $100,000? What would their plan in poker be?
    Surely they will say "Move Up".
    But why? All they know is "basic" because that is all they have needed to survice in their player pool.
    I think it is important to prepare for success.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭✭
    Carroters said this which make a lot of sens to me.

    " Open limping gives up any possibility of pre-flop fold equity, which as we know, constitutes one of our most stable and essential flows of EV in 6- max cash games.
     Open limping seizes no initiative and allows players behind us to raise and gain the initiative instead. This puts them in a situation where they can c-bet post-flop and apply pressure to win more than their fair share of pots should we both miss the flop. We’d rather be the ones achieving this.
     Open limping fails to thin the field and invites multiway pots, devaluing our post-flop holdings and making it more difficult to take down pots.
     Open limping fails to build a pot for value when we have a strong hand or favorable situation of some sort".

    I think it is important for you to understand that every competent player knows everything that was spoken of here.
    Now why would someone deviat of the norm?
    That is the question you should ask.
  • dirty moosedirty moose Red Chipper Posts: 480 ✭✭✭
    I think it is important to prepare for success.

    Of course. I though that was a given.
  • dirty moosedirty moose Red Chipper Posts: 480 ✭✭✭

    I think it is important for you to understand that every competent player knows everything that was spoken of here.
    Now why would someone deviat of the norm?
    That is the question you should ask.

    How many of these players do we come across in the small stakes pool?
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭✭

    I think it is important for you to understand that every competent player knows everything that was spoken of here.
    Now why would someone deviat of the norm?
    That is the question you should ask.

    How many of these players do we come across in the small stakes pool?

    Today? Maybe not many.
    But how about tomorrow? These training sites keep growing.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭✭
    I think it is important to prepare for success.

    Of course. I though that was a given.

    Not as much of a given as you may think.
    Many players win an event for large sums of money and are broke again not too long after.
  • dirty moosedirty moose Red Chipper Posts: 480 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2016
    I'm with you, we should be prepared for the better players to come.

    This is the part where you educate us..... =)
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 884 ✭✭✭
    I still find no objections here to my conditional and structural reasons for not limping.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 2,778 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Objections to your reasons are in fact buried in my questions to Adam, but we can go further.
    Imperator wrote: »
    To treat the Big Blind as an ante to see the Flop is simply treating the game as if you are playing stud with community cards. This is how, at lower levels, all of those limpers treat NLHE. So you try to exploit them. But the BB is not an ante to see the flop it is simply bait for action in front.
    This assumes far too much about why the limper limps. You're mixing general game conditions with individual strategy. If someone brings in but does not complete, are they never rolled up?
    Imperator wrote: »
    At such a game you really have a binary choice; always limp or never limp. This may sound funny that I speak in such absolute terms but the only reason to limp in such games is to obey the social norm and soothe all the people who think that a Big Blind is equivalent to an Ante in stud.
    This is vastly overstated. No one in the history of poker was thrown out of a game for mixing up limps and raises. You're also describing behavior and not strategy.
    Imperator wrote: »
    Limping strategically in such games, and trying to develop a range that is not forked into a limping range and a raising range, is self-defeating. There are no balanced limping ranges at $1-$2.
    Would the purpose of having a balanced limping game be necessarily to defeat other limpers? What part of NL is easiest and most solved?
    Imperator wrote: »
    Finally, when playing in the underground NYC games I don't limp because of the rake. Limping into the pot never beats the rake. This is what I saw at my very first underground game.
    So when I get into better games, at higher stakes, with less rake %, I will develop the limping range that I'm already thinking about.
    This seems legit, but it depends on how the rake works and what exactly you are trying to beat. Further, why would you wait until tougher games to figure out and test a strategy? And what, after all, does paying rake have to do with excellence?
    Imperator wrote: »
    There might be another reason not to limp. It is much harder to develop a plan for your hand if you limp. If you limp and you go multi-way with 7 others the plan is often fit-or-fold.

    I think you have to be a lot better player than I am to develop a plan for your hand if you limp and other people limp in front.

    Notice, this is not about whether it is good to limp or not. This is about my level skill. In other words it is a strategic choice at my skill level to not put myself into a box by limping in to multi-way pots.

    It is similar to the advice I give to young chess players who are not tactically minded: Play closed openings in tournaments and play openings that will get you into tactical trouble when you are practicing.
    Here you answer your own objection so you can't complain no one is answering you!

  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 884 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2016
    @persuadeo I will answer you later when I get back home. But I have to say that I think you are wrong in your assessment about the situation in these games, probably because you because you generally play with half-decent players.

    For now I will say, that there is another reason not to limp.

    Players get very, very angry at you if you are the only one at the table who doesn't limp and who 3-bets. They start playing back at you. They play back at you stupidly.

    I doubt this kind of thing happens at @persuadeo 's or @Christian Soto tables.

    Again this is a situational reason not to limp, not a categorical one.

    I have actually offered in other threads some situational reasons why and how a player might limp. I know @SplitSuit has offered reasons in some of his videos. But in this thread I don't see other's describing the particular situations when to limp and how.

    I think that my Mr. 80% had an interesting limping strategy. What is your limping strategy? And in what kind of situations do you suggest I limp into the pot in the kind of games where people get angry at you if you don't let them limp?

    I have to say that my only experience with "limping" is checking from the big blind. And then I often see good reasons to fold on the flop or I wish I had raised the 8 limpers behind instead of checked.

    When I do get involved in the pot postflop, these are usually my worse hands.


    In these games everybody mostly limps. Why follow the herd? Chin tells me not to follow the herd. Well I rarely do. Sometimes I should. Are you telling me I should here? Or that I should find a different way to prey on the herd by limping. But how?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 2,778 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm not telling you to do anything, just (re)answering objections to limping. I don't want you to do anything in particular.
    Imperator wrote: »

    For now I will say, that there is another reason not to limp.

    Players get very, very angry at you if you are the only one at the table who doesn't limp and who 3-bets. They start playing back at you. They play back at you stupidly.

    You just listed an exploitative reason to take an action. Terrific. However, the same scenario can be recreated through any action. Some people get angry if you check raise them, and it is even barred in some games. Isildur requested his opponent not min raise as a condition for a match. And yes, some people aren't going to react well to a well-planned limping strategy.

  • tfaziotfazio Red Chipper Posts: 759 ✭✭✭

    Tfazio,

    Why is open limping bad?

    I have not been keeping up with this thread and am pleased that so much has been said. My statement was "I feel that open limping can be bad" it is a fairly obvious statement not too controversial. I agree with much of what was already mentioned. That being said I seldom Open Limp. I do limp after limpers in games that I feel It will get through. At 1/2 some games get to be a limp fest. As far as Open Limping I feel that raising large sizes , 15 plus limpers allows me to isolate and realize my equity pre flop and not allowing players to limp in with speculative hands that can gain equity on flops. This can be player and table dependent and if the table is going to allow me to limp so be it. I feel that by being aggressive I can develope an image at the table and allow my ranges to widen or get players to play back at me with weaker holdings or get more aggressive players to widen their 3 bet ranges and change a boring limp fest game into a gambling game.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 884 ✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    I'm not telling you to do anything, just (re)answering objections to limping. I don't want you to do anything in particular.

    @persuadeo I didn't ask you to tell me to do anything. I stupidly or brilliantly go about doing what I want in spite of going to jail or knocks on the head or being shot at .... etc.

    What I did ask is this, which you didn't answer:

    What is your limping strategy? And in what kind of situations do you suggest I limp into the pot?


    And let me re-wright the question: What I mean is, in the kind of games where nearly 100% of the pots begin with people limping in? Because that is my question. Nearly 100%, of the pots begin with a limper. Rarely does anyone raise UTG but me. So I'm wondering in what position in these games, and how, and when, do you think it would be useful to strategically limp-in?

    I'm not asking for a formula and I've already in other threads come up with some answers. And even in this thread I have.

    In the old Watergate days we used to call this kind of response as a non-response response, to go along with non-denial denials. What you focused on was the (more or less) rhetorical flourish at the end where I said "Are you telling me I should here? " I should have deleted the rhetorical flourish in favor of only posting the serious question.

    I apologize for the rhetoric. Sometimes I'm sorry I write the way I do. Too much time writing for small journals where the polemic is valued. I should write here like the technical writer I am. (But it is less fun that way.)
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 884 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2016
    Since @persuadeo maybe ignored this part of my point which I posted as a separate thread, I want to post this edited version here.

    I want to entitle this .....

    Advice to Low Skilled Players Such as Myself Playing in Low-Stakes Games.

    I will divide my advice into categorical observations, situational observations, and situational rules of thumb. Also in poker you can never say never. There are times you probably should limp but those times are very, very rare in low-stakes games, when your skill level is not far above others in your game. So sure, if you have 75s it is hard just not to limp in from late position, with multiple limpers in front, especially where there are quite of few short stacks. In deep stacked games I would just want raise big.

    Categorical Observations

    1. Texas Hold-em cash games are not structured around antes. You don't have to pay a price to see your hole cards.
    2. The price of the Big Blind is not an ante to see the Flop.

    Situational Observations

    3. Most players in low stakes NLHE games use the price of the Big Blind as a cheap way to see the Flop. At the extreme, it has developed into a social norm. The cost of the Big Blind is simply a way to ante-up for the flop. (This is especially true in certain home games, where I am no longer welcome.)
    4. To follow this social norm is to create a new structure for NLHE, in effect a different game with different kinds of strategies post-flop.

    Situational Advice On When Not to Limp
    5. Don't limp into games simply to obey the social norm, unless one of the main reason you are playing in the game is to be friendly.
    6. Don't limp into a game if you have to fork your range, between a limping range and a betting range. This is exploitable and creates weakness.
    7. Realize that when others limp into games, most are creating a limping range, a betting range, and a limp calling range, that for me is at least, is often readable. If it is readable it can be exploitable.
    8. Don't limp into games unless you have the skills to plan your hands around your balanced limping range. (If you do have the skills to play your hand then limping is situational.)
    9. Realize that it is harder to plan your hands when you limp into pots, because you will be thrown into more awkward situations and many more multi-player situations that are harder to defend. (They are harder to defend from any mathematical point-of-view also.)
    10. Understand that your skill level must exceed other players to a greater extent in limped multiplayer pots because you will often be surprised by who has what and when. Surprises make it harder to plan a hand.
    11. There is often an unexpected pot multiplier in limped pots and the game can become very costly, very quickly. Thus it becomes harder to estimate SPR on the Flop because you don't know who is going to fold and who might go all in. This again makes it harder to plan your hand.
    12. Do not limp into games where there is a high rake. It makes it harder to beat the rake when only a few people limp and no-one builds the pot.
    13. Don't limp if your only plan is fit-or-fold.

    *******
    It is nothing to be ashamed of to say to yourself that you don't yet have the skill to limp into pots. If you are having a hard time finding a plan for your hands then don't limp until you are able to plan your your usual betting hands. If you become good at planning your hands, and you move up in stakes, then you can experiment with limping and with getting yourself in difficult situations.

    Of course, my advice is only for cash games. Just looking at the structure of tournament games, with rising blinds and low SPRs there are a lot more reasons for limping.

    But, if it is part of your strategy to limp, and you are good at it, and you gain chips by doing it, then by all means limp-in. Trap other players who fork their ranges. Even play like my Mr. 80%, if you are good enough to play that way. I'm not.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 884 ✭✭✭
    P.S. Listen, I'm sorry I'm for posting the above again, but I want to show that I'm not against limping into pots.

    It is just that nobody, but @SplitSuit has made a good argument for when and where limping would be strategically valuable. And @SplitSuit 's argument have to do with small stack sizes and suited hands or some low value hands. Actually, these are hands that in deep stacked games, in late position, or in the BB, I might want to 3-bet.

    But if you read the above you will see that every situational point that I make has an exception. And that exception points to when it might be good to limp into a pot. As far as I can see, in this thread no one has actually tried to answer the original question. I did and in a very minimal way I am doing so here.

    The above advice is simply a list that I originally made for myself quite a few months ago. I want to remind everybody that I am very, very young in this game. I have only been playing since January 2015. So I have made a lot of lists for myself.

    And I don't understand how @persuadeo or @Christian Soto have said anything here that would help me to rethink the points on this list.

    If you will notice that most of this list has to do with "skill set" and "instruments". These skill sets mostly boil down to "planning your hand." It is simply easier to plan your hand when playing heads-up than playing multi-way. The math is easier. Your own frequencies are easier to decide. Your estimate of the other persons range will be a bit more accurate.

    From the beginning, I have insisted that excellence depends on your own accurate estimation of your skill set. I believe that you have to have an accurate measure of your own stupidity to play in this game. And I think an accurate self-estimation of the skill set of most $1-$2 players, and a large proportion of $2-$5 players will lead them not to limp into pots.
«1

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file