Hello RIO,

I see Phil and his high stakes opponents play the "3x or limp" style from the button.
The argument I read against minraising 100% is your opponent can defend everything.
Why does that matter? That would be like saying if you limp 100%, your opponent can check back 100%. It's not an EV-based objection.

The "you want to push equity" argument does not seem valid either. Raw equity is correlated to EV, true. But raw equity does not translate to implied odds. AA has an equity advantage against every hand, but you don't shovel money on the river with a pair of Aces. Maybe the argument should be you want to build pots with hands with good implied odds?

Lastly, based on my first 5,000 hands playing HU PLO, random opponents don't defend wide enough and don't 3bet enough, which weakens the case for limping.

So my argument is this: for most people, you are better off playing raise or fold preflop. It is simpler, it is better exploitatively and there is no EV-based or theoretical argument to favor 3x-or-limp.

Who objects?