Limping Behind Early Limpers With Big Hands

[7s7c 0]

Just curious if anyone uses or has some thoughts on plays that involve limping behind early limpers (UTG, UTG+1) in early position yourself with big aces or middle pairs, etc hoping someone makes a play at the dead money from the cutoff, button, etc worrying only about the blinds or the earliest limper. (ie) UTG limps, you (UTG+1) limp with AK, etc...hoping someone makes a play at the UTG/Blinds other limpers behind probably least concerned with your holdings in particular. I've tried this in a few of the tougher games I've played in of late when it's made sense given the stage of the tourney or if the ring game has been uber aggro and it's worked pretty well but I don't see it used much except for when it's the original limper with the big hand hoping a desperate or mildly desperate stack makes a move in the later stages of a tourney obv. Anybody use this strat regularly with success or is this -EV on the whole given the amount of time you'll take masses to the flop with you cutting down on your profit from your quality starters?

[TwoFourOffsuit 0]

Only do it occasionally at most as a bluff, and I mean no more than once a session. Normally, you need to raise. The more players in on a pot, the more chances there are of outdrawing you. Even pocket aces can easily be outdrawn with the right board cards.

[7s7c 0]

but we aren't really bluffing we are trapping. My point was that traditionally an UTG limp might mean a monster hand but most certainly a call from UTG+1 or UTG+2 after that original limp means a marginal hand we don't have to worry about if we are trying to take the dead money off the button, hence once we get past the blinds and UTG we are homefree. I'm suggesting a trap limp play in the middle of a previous limp and a dead money raise. Conditions have to be correct obv. but I was in a game last night where I noticed a lot of dead money stealing and thought these conditions might be optimal for a play of this nature. Was wondering if any of the good tourneys guys on here incorporate something like this at all. I know when I make a dead money steal the last guy I'm worried about is the 2nd limper.

[TwoFourOffsuit 0]

You're really in no position to trap until you have the nuts.

[No_Neck 0]

it is really opponent dependent. I mean will the guy stack off with top pair no kicker, if this is the case then maybe. The only problem is when they flop a big hand and we have to call because we have not defined our hand. The other problem is that he has to flop exactly one pair for you to get any action. That is why I prefer to slowplay post flop when the villian can make a decent hand that is still second best.

[7s7c 0]

it is really opponent dependent. I mean will the guy stack off with top pair no kicker, if this is the case then maybe. The only problem is when they flop a big hand and we have to call because we have not defined our hand. The other problem is that he has to flop exactly one pair for you to get any action. That is why I prefer to slowplay post flop when the villian can make a decent hand that is still second best.

We're mostly counting on not seeing the flop when a late position player sees dead money and decides to go after it with a obv.dead money ginormo raise pre-flop. Conditions have to be correct of course and it's obvious this has been done UTG before and such but my question was more of a situation in which the UTG has already limped and us UTG+1 with something like AK, by limping might encourage another limper and then an aggro player or simply one that incurs good tourney strat to move at the dead money and commit something like 3X pot, etc only being concerned (minimally) with the blinds and the original limper. Just curious because I've seen this play made many times UTG but hardly ever by a player who is sandwiched between the original limper and the raiser. Squeezing the squeezer, so to speak.

[Zach6668 513]

OP, ignore TwoFourOffsuit's advice. Always.

[trystero 0]

This strategy's definitely got merit given the proper circumstances. Of course you need the right player to be in the blinds or OTB for this to work. Generally good players will punish limping. Knowing this it only makes sense to limp BEHIND (open limping is basically always terrible) holding a big pair with aggressive players yet to act. Good thought

[TwoFourOffsuit 0]

OP, ignore TwoFourOffsuit's advice. Always.

As with any advice (including mine), take Zach's with a grain of salt. He has personal issues with me.

[Zach6668 513]

As with any advice (including mine), take Zach's with a grain of salt. He has personal issues with me.

Only because you give poorly thought out, closed-minded, and generally bad advice.

[Actuary 3]

As with any advice (including mine), take Zach's with a grain of salt. He has personal issues with me.

nothing personaL, but you give bad advice. I'm wondering what happened to your humility.****************************77:I'm with ya.Of course it's a high risk manuever. ( Playing post flop if no one raises you need to balance the under-represnetation of your hand with the lack of putting others on hands, too.. and if you have something like TT and someone does raise you may still be dominated but erroneously assume you have the best hand preflopI imagine you will be shoving after the LP players "squeezes".If stacks are very deep, I would hesitate to not define my hand earlier, unless I had AA-KK, maybe AK/QQ.With not-deep stacks (I know, that's relative), I like the idea, a lot, at the right tables. Shrter stacks (you and/or them) will lead to more LP raising and calling of your shoving..with worse hands than would raise with you otherwiseI have not tried this, except maybe a few times with super agg at table.

[TwoFourOffsuit 0]

nothing personaL, but you give bad advice. I'm wondering what happened to your humility.

I'm simply responding to an inordinate amount of flack. And I've been working on it: if I've given any bad advice recently, I'd appreciate it a lot more if people would point out what is wrong with my suggestions, than if they just flip the proverbial bird and trash talk me instead.One can only have so much humility in the face of so much **** talk and hostility.

[Zach6668 513]

I'm simply responding to an inordinate amount of flack. And I've been working on it: if I've given any bad advice recently, I'd appreciate it a lot more if people would point out what is wrong with my suggestions, than if they just flip the proverbial bird and trash talk me instead.One can only have so much humility in the face of so much **** talk and hostility.

Didn't we have numerous threads which were each several pages long where we tried to do this, to no avail?

[TwoFourOffsuit 0]

It was one thread, maybe two. Feel free to point out the 'numerous' others if you're certain they exist.Really, you just hate me, for reasons that go beyond the simple, 'I think you're wrong.' I wish you'd just let your hangups go.

[Highlow16 0]

Just dont ever limp big hands behind a limper. Dont do it. Even if..... nope cant think of one. NoNoNoNoThere are a lot of "ifs" to make this play work. I think its a losing play more often then not. Unless you can muck AA on the flop without batting an eye then you cant even consider this IMO. You also asked about mid pairs like 77, thats different. I dont consider that a premium hand so its certainly ok to limp these behind in a tournament although in a cash game i prefer to raise the limper.

[Doug 0]

If you are holding AA-KK, a limp in early position can often be 99's through to AA's that are waiting for a re-raise so on that information i'd raise with AA KK hoping for that to happen. If you are against junk raise, the blinds will probably come in cheap if you don't which could leave you in a 4 way pot and unless you want to be outdrawn I wouldn't reccomend a limp behind a limp with a big pair. Limps encourage more limps.

[7s7c 0]

If you are holding AA-KK, a limp in early position can often be 99's through to AA's that are waiting for a re-raise so on that information i'd raise with AA KK hoping for that to happen. If you are against junk raise, the blinds will probably come in cheap if you don't which could leave you in a 4 way pot and unless you want to be outdrawn I wouldn't reccomend a limp behind a limp with a big pair. Limps encourage more limps.

Sometimes. But with good players (dependant on table/stack sizes) in LP it also encourages a large raise with ATC, or moderately strong holdings (Ax, etc). How many times has someone limped in front you and you follow suit with something like 8c/7c as does 1 or 2 others and then someone in LP throws out a large raise probably only worrying about the 2/3 players after him and maybe the 1st limper, if at all? This is good tourney strategy and must be employed to build your stack throughout a MTT...thus I'm suggesting that maybe trying a play every now and then where you have seen this LP raise made but haven't combated it yet...where you are limping behind the early limper with a hand like AK/AQ for instance (something you wouldn't mind moving in with and seeing all 5 cards but the stack sizes aren't desperate enough given the blinds but if raised first, they would be). Perhaps instead of the traditional 3X-4X raise, getting 1 caller and c'betting the flop and hoping he missed if you miss, etc...an interesting play (if conditions are right) is to limp behind an EP limper with it and hope a LP player makes a play at the dead money pre-flop. Now you are sitting with the best hand or an even money situation facing a stiff raise (if he has AA or KK and the conditions are right to make this sort of play you are probably getting it in anyway the traditional way) and depending on stack sizes you are able to put someone to the test pre-flop and most likely pick up their raise when they can't call whereas you were probably seeing a flop with it when played the traditional way and good players will sniff out a 2 high cards c'bet and if the flop looks dry will put you to the test instead. I'm suggesting that against good players you have to think outside the box a bit and play some hands in non-traditional ways sometimes to get them to work in your favor. Good players will routinely put the squeeze on players who limp behind dead money, this is a way to put the squeeze back on them when they are not expecting such a play. I'm not very good at explaning rationale half the time and I'm too lazy to come up with a concrete example but I tried doing this the other night in a high buy in tourney against what I perceived to be good players and I ended up stacking with AK vs KQ using this method whereas if I didn't it probably would have gone, AK-raise, KQ- call, dry flop, c-bet, raise/fold and I would not like a raise. Not always a good play of course but given the right circumstances (aggros in LP who are going to move at dead money, proper stack sizes and tough post flop players involved) it is something to think about.

[navybuttons 15]

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...p;#entry1650036i'm not sure if this is the kind of play you're talking about, but i got panned pretty hard for it.i think there may still be some merit to it.

[7s7c 0]

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...p;#entry1650036i'm not sure if this is the kind of play you're talking about, but i got panned pretty hard for it.i think there may still be some merit to it.

Yeah very similar. Obv the blinds/stack sizes/conditions...yadda yadda have to be correct....only I'm advocating doing it with a starting hand like AJ-Ak....etc....a hand that you can get into post flop trouble with vs a tough player but if that same player is an aggro player in picking up dead limped money...it is a hand that you'd love to be HU with vs them but see all 5 for certain. Ex:9 handed...blinds 200/400....we are in the cutoff with AQ and 12k in our stack. 2 limp in front of us...aggro villain on the button has 25k...we limp with AQ hoping the villain makes a play at the dead money which totals 1400. If we make a standard raise to 1200-1500 say...the villain who we see as a tough aggro player has position on us if he decides to call thinking that perhaps we were going after dead money and if a dry flop hits we may be faced with a very difficult decision if our c'bet is sniffed out. We limp and the villain seeing 3 limps and having the button raises to 3000 say. All fold back to us and we move in for 8600 more. This has now turned the tables very effectively on the squeezer. Obv conditions are very specific but I rarely see this type of play mentioned anywhere where we are basically goading an aggro into blind/dead money stealing so that there is enough in the middle where it makes sense for us to move in with a hand we would normally love to be HU allin with where we are guaranteed to see 5 cards vs a tough player who we may very well have dominated. Forgive me if I messed up any of the math.

[Zach6668 513]

I think it's an interesting play, and like anything, needs solid, solid reads.I couldn't imagine doing it in a tourney, where it's a huge deal if we miss the chance to reraise, due to escalating blinds, but I think it could be really effective in a cash game.

[CobaltBlue 662]

I'd tend to agree that it's a strange play in tournaments (though I've certainly seen it), and I haven't tried it much in that arena. That said, I've seen mention of the "move" in several sources before. Usually I've seen it attributed to Sklansky - that he likes to limp late w/ AA versus a limper or two in hopes of a raise behind. It can be quite deceptive and work well given certain opponents/game conditions. It's not typically optimal where deception isn't needed. I do remember playing in one NLHE game with a very aggro player though...he'd almost always raise if there was one or two limpers to him. Thus, I started limping after previous limpers with big hands (AA/KK/QQ/AK), because I knew I'd get a chance to "squeeze" several opponents and re-pop him. If I didn't get the chance, no biggie...I was comfortable playing post-flop. So that's another big factor...whether you can comfortably fold if the board comes bad and you weren't able to get a raise in.

[Money022 0]

The only problem is when they flop a big hand and we have to call because we have not defined our hand.

Very true. It's more difficult, IMO, to play a big starting hand when you haven't defined your hand. When you haven't show aggression it's hard to determine if they have a monster, or think top pair is good. You don't know what they are putting you on, so they could be pushing with a wider range.

[7s7c 0]

I do remember playing in one NLHE game with a very aggro player though...he'd almost always raise if there was one or two limpers to him. Thus, I started limping after previous limpers with big hands (AA/KK/QQ/AK), because I knew I'd get a chance to "squeeze" several opponents and re-pop him. If I didn't get the chance, no biggie...I was comfortable playing post-flop. So that's another big factor...whether you can comfortably fold if the board comes bad and you weren't able to get a raise in.

Indeed. This is the type of situation I'm talking about. I hadn't seen it mentioned much before and as such kinda thought of it in a similar game the other night and it seemed to work well and like you said if you're comfortable playing flops it's not going to create too much havoc for you if you're 3 or 4 handed with a big starter. I've seen it a few times on HSP I recall but most of the time it seems to go repop/fold. I don't really see a smooth call after the pop by the aggro much but I think there's merit to that as well.

[slix777 0]

I think this is a great situational play. Personally if I'm playing a 100+ tourney and we're on the bubble or later and it's getting to the point that some of the shorter stacks are trying to steal blinds/antes I'll make this play and put myself way ahead 90% of the time. Final table and bubble situations when everyone's playing tight unless they sense weakness I'll do this anytime I think someone is going to bet behind me and I know that the game is pretty tight.

[MR_BIZKITZ 0]

I use this play sometimes. Its seems to work better later in a tournament when people are looking to make moves. I would not limp behind in a cash game ever