The Modern LAG: Limping the SB (Part 2)
Posted by Sean Lefort
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 19 Comments...
I know you mostly play hu, but what are your thoughts on applying this strat in 6max plo?
how about in heads up maybe more shorter stacks? vs good defenders to limp the total range we play in sb ?
Hey Cwil81, thats better suited for the RiO PLO pros.. maybe make a post in the forums referencing my video.
reposting from part 1 huplz So how would the math be for BvB limping we have 55% ev from a pot with 2bbs in it so 2*0.55*0.8? so 0.88bb/hand we make when we see the flop as R is 80% - the limp (as we cant win our own money) so +0.38bbs when we see the flop?If we limp and get raised we lose 0.5bb/hand if lets say we fold vs a raise 100% of the time then for limping to be 0ev bb have to raise 43%? isent BBs goal to make our weakest limp ev0 whats the definition of bb being exploitable vs limps? Even tho a 100% limp way of playing bvb make your unexplo sb strategy bigger then a unexplo 100% pfr strategy (100% of the hands you play) do you Think that the bigger hands like AK AA TT etc makes so much less that rasing still might be better?How are the players you know doing limping the hands like that vs rasing them?
"So how would the math be for BvB limping we have 55% ev from a pot with 2bbs in it so 2*0.55*0.8? so 0.88bb/hand we make when we see the flop as R is 80% - the limp (as we cant win our own money) so +0.38bbs when we see the flop?If we limp and get raised we lose 0.5bb/hand if lets say we fold vs a raise 100% of the time then for limping to be 0ev bb have to raise 43%? isent BBs goal to make our weakest limp ev0"
Not all of the R values for the hands at the bottom of our limping range will be the same, depending on their playability etc.. Ie. some hands have slightly higher EQ but lower R, and vice versa. It's not a precise science so I wouldn't get hung up on using the estimated numbers to try to find BB's optimal raising frequency. Also, some of those hands are actually limp/RRbluffs instead of limp/folds.
Something to remember about the big hands and being scared of losing value.. the times you get to LRR them (say *30% of the time) is very substantial.. versus the times you get to open/4b them (far less). So you're actually more often going to be playing greater than a single-raised pot.
We try to optimize the value from our entire range and thus just because raising AA is going to give it say 1.5x more value than LRRing it in isolation, doesn't mean that raising is optimal. Because limping it may mean we have 5 other hands that we can now profitable limp for -20bb/100 and would have otherwise had to fold for -50bb/100. The numbers are arbitrary, but you get the idea.
halfway through, but if you are analysing the BBs raising range shouldn't you take into account that he will have some fold equity and won't need 55% equity (also not sure why this isn't just 50+ to start).
Did some maths and looks like you are right (not very surprising), the numbers seemed pretty close for even pretty bad hands so it's certainly important to make sure you aren't limp/folding too much
You say at 21:50 that you don't think BB can raise over 30% - but as SB it was ok to raise around 30% of hands vs a 100% proceeding range when you were out of position and getting worse odds on your raise. I'd imagine the number of hands BB can raise should be higher.
I'll go even further by saying that this situation seems to resemble HU sb vs bb where you recommended minraising a 100% range. Why wouldn't you do the same here? I think your assumption about how often the bb can raise is very wrong.
Not sure exactly what you mean by, "but as SB it was ok to raise around 30% of hands vs a 100% proceeding range when you were out of position and getting worse odds on your raise." If we're the SB and opening 30%, BB should not be proceeding with 100% of hands.
The reason he can't raise more than ~30% is because our range is only ~65% (as Loubia pointed out) and thus the situation is very different than HU. If he starts doing so, we're incentivized to LRR wider in a manner that makes him struggle to defend properly.
I thought along the same lines but you're forgetting (or underestimating the effect) that just checking we have equity in the pot and hands below top 30% do better to check and realise this equity than raise and narrow SBs range and potentially get re-raised off our equity.
I think this is much more relevant that thinking SB can just LRR us more, it shouldn't be that hard to defend vs in position. On the button in both 6m and HU we are opening >>30% of hands and can defend fine vs 3bs. (Disclaimer, Sean is better at poker than me, so I'm probably wrong)
@uri: he doesn't limp 100% of his range but 65%, that is the difference imho
Hi Sean,
How would your ranges look against someone raising, say, 50% of your limps?
Hi Sean. With regards to the LRR range, doesn't the LRR bluff portion of the range fall down because the suggested hands K4s, A3o are not good hands to 5bet bluff jam so does that range not need to contain some hands that are good for this like the Axs ?. Thanks.
interesting stuff
i'd love to hear some more on how to proceed post flop after 1)limp and BB checks and 2)after limp/call as i have zero experience in either of these spots despite playing tons of poker the last 8 years :)
Nice videooo !
If my calculations are correct, they show that I can profitably 3x vs your limp 90-100% of hands against your initial strategy even with R < 1 (= 0,9) with position (+++) and initiative (+), minus weaker range (--) and bad playability with crappy hands (-) (so as you see, R < 1 is already generous), but you claimed that you actually suspect people raising too wide and lay out your initial strategy for exploiting this tendency.
If you would give me a limping-%, limp/reraise-range-% and limp/call-range-% (and possibly an actual range for the latter) that exploits a raising-range > 40%, I will show you my calculations with your numbers.
I probably just missed it but again WHY does BB reraise linear range and not normal balanced range?
Nice video! One small thing, though. If we limp 65% and BB checks back bottom 75%, then in limped pots SB has an important range advantage (in the video, lefort doesn't take it into account I think). That could potentially increase R for our limping range.
Excellent video Sean, again. I've been trying to translate your cash game 6m ranges to my MTT environment, and it's been pretty fun - once you put an extra ~1bb in the calculations (due to the avg. antes in a 9max MTT), things tend to get really wild.
In the "How wide can we limp" part, the EV calculation:
0.75 * (R * E * 3bb - 0.5bb) + 0.25 * (-0.5bb) = 0
I struggle with the frequencies because I don't know in an optimal point of view if the BB should be raising far more than 25% due to the bloated pot PF (bc of the antes) or if it doesn't matter since if he starts raising too much we can still make his life hell by LRR more.
Another question I have is related to stack depth:
Do you think this strategy is still optimal when stacks start to get around 20BB? As an MTT player I often myself playing against or with these weird stack sizes.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.