Early levels and limping: -ev or +ev?

corblimey

The last tourney I played in, I made a conscious decision to limp for the first level. I had a starting stack of 4000 and blinds were 25/50. At the rate we were playing, we got about 12 hands in at this level. I just limped each time I had anything at all (better than T7 say), and if there was a raise, I threw away the more marginal hands. I also threw away less marginal hands that missed the flop if I was bet into.

I won one hand when I limped with Q2o in early and flopped 2 pair. I think this hand made the limping worthwhile, but I suspect this was a foolish way to play, that I'm going to find myself in trouble (middle pairs, top pair, weak kicker, etc) and I was just lucky this night.

Is there any maths or accepted knowledge to back up my theory?

Hitman Actual

corblimey wrote:

The last tourney I played in, I made a conscious decision to limp for the first level. I had a starting stack of 4000 and blinds were 25/50. At the rate we were playing, we got about 12 hands in at this level. I just limped each time I had anything at all (better than T7 say), and if there was a raise, I threw away the more marginal hands. I also threw away less marginal hands that missed the flop if I was bet into.

I won one hand when I limped with Q2o in early and flopped 2 pair. I think this hand made the limping worthwhile, but I suspect this was a foolish way to play, that I'm going to find myself in trouble (middle pairs, top pair, weak kicker, etc) and I was just lucky this night.

Is there any maths or accepted knowledge to back up my theory?

I personally dont like this at all, tbh. The hands you're playing aren't even marginal, they're rags. You're leaking away money pre-flop very weakly, with the potential to lose a lot of money on the flop when you do hit, because you will often end up in situations that are hard to play. For example, even the flopped 2-pair with Q2 is very vulnerable. I doubt that there are any maths to prove that this is a profitable way to play.

Amaru

corblimey wrote:

The last tourney I played in, I made a conscious decision to limp for the first level. I had a starting stack of 4000 and blinds were 25/50. At the rate we were playing, we got about 12 hands in at this level. I just limped each time I had anything at all (better than T7 say), and if there was a raise, I threw away the more marginal hands. I also threw away less marginal hands that missed the flop if I was bet into.

I won one hand when I limped with Q2o in early and flopped 2 pair. I think this hand made the limping worthwhile, but I suspect this was a foolish way to play, that I'm going to find myself in trouble (middle pairs, top pair, weak kicker, etc) and I was just lucky this night.

Is there any maths or accepted knowledge to back up my theory?

There is merit to the theory, and its employed by some of the best tournament players in the world. Ste05 and myself actually discussed this in another thread recently. Daniel Negreanu employs this style, trying to see a lot of flops very cheaply, in the hope of outplaying his opponents. It's a tough style to play, and it isn't for everybody. You need good instincts about your opponents hand strength, be able to act correctly on this, and you have to be able to fold a lot of hands, because once people figure out what you're doing, they'll start playing back. Of course, this comes back to the instincts thing again, so you need to be able to react to this. The real advantage to this theory is if people can't make easy folds, in which case hitting a small 2 pair or better will mean you can get them to commit large portions of their stack with something as simple as top pair.

corblimey

Yeah, my post-flop hands were so dire, there was no real decision making required, just fold. But I suspect that I could have got caught in dangerous hands and p*ssed all my chips away. My only clear rational was that I was only going to do this for the first level, and my stack was large enough to accomodate it and hopefully recover from any hits.

Amaru

Well, it goes beyond that. You can raise with trash when in position to narrow the number of limpers, and then a continuation bet is usually enough to take down the pot if your opponents are weak/tight. Aggression is the key if you're going to play marginal hands, knowing both when to put it on in spades, and when to take your foot off the pedal. Like i said, instincts for the relative strength of your opponent is a big factor in this style of play.

Bottom line, if you're not comfortable getting involved with marginal hands, then don't do it.