Is it OK to limp small pp's UTG

I know open limping sucks, but I'm having trouble playing small pp's utg or even mp. The problem I'm having is, let's say I raise preflop with 44 UTG, I get 3 callers. Flop misses, then it's check/fold. Is this kind of play ok? If I did this every time I missed a set would it be +EV? I don't really want to cut small pp's out of my UTG range, I don't think anyone folds a pp UTG in 6max anyways.

Also same scenario as before, except I get 3betted by the CO and everyone else folds to me, is set hunting still +EV assuming 100bb stacks?

Basically how do you play small pp's UTG?

c/f into 3 people isnt bad with a middle pair with little chance of improving. Your aim is to get hu and take the pot down or hit a set and take a stack. limping is horrible because it leaves your range extremely unbalanced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grindwell

... I get 3betted by the CO and everyone else folds to me, is set hunting still +EV assuming 100bb stacks?

---

fold imo. By opening UTG you're generally representing a strong range and when you are 3bet despite this you are almost certainly behind. Also you will be OOP postflop and have trouble getting paid when u do make your set. Make sense?

Sometimes at microstakes in specific games - very loose passive pre-flop (lots of limping little raising) with a couple of donks who like to play big pots it's ok to limp or min raise low pp utg.

Why because they're slightly unprofitable to play oop as the pfr with 1/2 callers who don't fold to cbet often enough as you noticed
but with 4/5 people seeing a flop in a limped pot they become quite playable.

But if there's even 1 semi decent player with position on you then don't limp. You can always raise them with a lower frequency if you find them slightly unprofitable in the games you play.

with all due respect, some might disagree with some of this but here's my 2 cents:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noble007

Sometimes at microstakes in specific games - very loose passive pre-flop (lots of limping little raising) with a couple of donks who like to play big pots it's ok to limp or min raise low pp utg.

---

i prefer to isolate the donks. Not to mention that the frequency of at least one thinking player sitting at your table is going to be high (even at microstakes) and he'll exploit you to no end.

Quote:

---

Why because they're slightly unprofitable to play oop as the pfr with 1/2 callers who don't fold to cbet often enough as you noticed

---

we're only going to make a set roughly 13% of time. Limp/folding 77% isn't profitable imo and limp/cbet/folding when you miss is weak too against stations. I still prefer to raise my pp UTG to rep big hands on the flop and/or dbl barrel good turn cards against players who demonstrate their inability to fold.

Quote:

---

but with 4/5 people seeing a flop in a limped pot they become quite playable.

---

how exactly? It becomes an ez fold when you miss if that's what you mean but that approach seems kinda weak/passive imo.

Quote:

---

But if there's even 1 semi decent player with position on you then don't.

---

why not!? it would seem to me that being 'semi decent' as you put it that we'll be able to get him to fold a lot to our cbets on the flop when he misses as oppose to the donks in the first part of your explanation.

Quote:

---

You can always raise them with a lower frequency if you find them slightly unprofitable in the games you play.

---

I always open pp's from any position (never limp) and sometimes 3bet with them IP against LP opens vs looser players.

OK here is what I think.

We open raise pps from all positions for a few reasons.

In no order:

1.Preflop fold equity - winning the blinds is a perfectly good outcome
2.To build a pot for times when you do hit a set. It's very difficult to play for stacks in a limped pot
3.To balance our opening range
4.They play pretty easily in and oop. Almost always fold to 3 bets preflop.
Post flop get lots of money in w sets. W /out sets pick some good boards to cbet heads up and c/f the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yourfather

OK here is what I think.

We open raise pps from all positions for a few reasons.

In no order:

1.Preflop fold equity - winning the blinds is a perfectly good outcome
2.To build a pot for times when you do hit a set. It's very difficult to play for stacks in a limped pot
3.To balance our opening range
4.They play pretty easily in and oop. Almost always fold to 3 bets preflop.
Post flop get lots of money in w sets. W /out sets pick some good boards to cbet heads up and c/f the rest.

---

this. wp sir.

folding 22-55 is pretty standard for me UTG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

folding 22-55 is pretty standard for me UTG

---

Short-handed as well spenda?

I fold 22-66 6max UTG without too much worry. I may expand my range later but I know it's fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parasurama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

folding 22-55 is pretty standard for me UTG

---

Short-handed as well spenda?

---

clarify twice spenda?

folding any pp in a shorthanded game is nitty in my book - not to mention boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by al yell

folding any pp in a shorthanded game is nitty in my book - not to mention boring.

---

Ive been limping small PP for a while, and its starting to niggle me. SO Im wondering whether to stsrt folding them. Villian depending on of coarse.

edit. lol, thanks for pointing that out.

6-handed I fold them utg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by celtic123

and its starting to niggly me. SO Im wondering whether to stsrt folding them. Villian depending on of coarse.

---

Clarify or racist ban!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by celtic123

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by al yell

folding any pp in a shorthanded game is nitty in my book - not to mention boring.

---

Ive been limping small PP for a while, and its starting to niggly me. SO Im wondering whether to stsrt folding them. Villian depending on of coarse.

---

when 1st into the pot, raiiiiisssse theeeemmmm

limping behind in LP or completing the SB is different story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yourfather

OK here is what I think.

We open raise pps from all positions for a few reasons.

In no order:

1.Preflop fold equity - winning the blinds is a perfectly good outcome
2.To build a pot for times when you do hit a set. It's very difficult to play for stacks in a limped pot
3.To balance our opening range
4.They play pretty easily in and oop. Almost always fold to 3 bets preflop.
Post flop get lots of money in w sets. W /out sets pick some good boards to cbet heads up and c/f the rest.

---

This are all just words, how's it working out for you in practice? Can you post a PT or HEM screenshot of your winrate with 22-55 UTG? I'm not trying to call you out but I rarely see people winning money with these hands so I fold them except at tables that are so nitty that I can make money just based on preflop folding equity.

I need to take out some small pairs out of my utg range. wondering if adding some middle suited connectors like 78-9Ts would be profitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yourfather

OK here is what I think.

We open raise pps from all positions for a few reasons.

In no order:

1.Preflop fold equity - winning the blinds is a perfectly good outcome
2.To build a pot for times when you do hit a set. It's very difficult to play for stacks in a limped pot
3.To balance our opening range
4.They play pretty easily in and oop. Almost always fold to 3 bets preflop.
Post flop get lots of money in w sets. W /out sets pick some good boards to cbet heads up and c/f the rest.

---

This are all just words, how's it working out for you in practice? Can you post a PT or HEM screenshot of your winrate with 22-55 UTG? I'm not trying to call you out but I rarely see people winning money with these hands so I fold them except at tables that are so nitty that I can make money just based on preflop folding equity.

---

you're not necessarily trying to profit directly from opening small PP UTG. I think yourfather's most important point is #3, then #2, then#1 and #4 is just good general advice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thizzSantaCruz

I need to take out some small pairs out of my utg range. wondering if adding some middle suited connectors like 78-9Ts would be profitable.

---

without a doubt.

Hmm, I am silly, writing this words and all.

But in seriousness, I don't have a graph to back this up. In fact I am not necessarily advocating opening all pps utg, although I do it. It may not be optimal, I am not sure. I was giving the reasons why one would open them.

Edit: Also, I think we can all agree raise or fold is better than limping small pps from utg, and my reasons are why one would raise them.

What I am saying is that for questions to which the answer is easily determined by statistical evidence, we should answer the question based those statistics, not by normative analysis like yours above. I could easily write an argument for why it's bad to open small pairs UTG -- you'll be OOP most of the time, it's hard to get to a cheap showdown with marginal hands when you're OOP, you have very poor barreling equity -- and my reasons would be no more or less valid than yours. The way to know who is right is for people to open their databases and see if they're making money with these hands UTG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by al yell

you're not necessarily trying to profit directly from opening small PP UTG.

---

Playing -EV hands from UTG at 100NL just to balance your range sounds like a waste of time and profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

What I am saying is that for questions to which the answer is easily determined by statistical evidence, we should answer the question based those statistics, not by normative analysis like yours above.

---

maybe more so in limit holdem. In NL basing your play strictly on statistical data is going to make you an extremely exploitable player as you move up the stakes.

Quote:

---

I could easily write an argument for why it's bad to open small pairs UTG --
a) you'll be OOP most of the time,
b) it's hard to get to a cheap showdown with marginal hands when you're OOP,
c) you have very poor barreling equity
-- and my reasons would be no more or less valid than yours.

---

a) you have initiative and are repping strength
b) i think mostly we're not trying to get to showdown with these hands
c) what about fold equity + a)

Quote:

---

The way to know who is right is for people to open their databases and see if they're making money with these hands UTG.

---

I think the point that need not be made is it's not that black and white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by al yell

you're not necessarily trying to profit directly from opening small PP UTG.

---

Playing -EV hands from UTG at 100NL just to balance your range sounds like a waste of time and profit.

---

it might be a mistake to undervalue its importance. Plus, if you want to talk statistics, at a shorthanded table if you're dealt a pair you are almost always ahead PF. Anyone calling with worse is going to miss the flop roughly 70% of the time. +EV imo.

As you move up it is important to have the low pp and 1/2 small sc's in your perceived range in early position for balance reasons but for most people they are slight losers and marginal winners at best.

As for myself if I play them at 50nl & above I always raise them but am happy to fold them sometimes depending on game conditions.

However as I mentioned in like the 10cent games when there are a large % of people seeing the flop in limped pots small pp & sc's become really profitable.

Why? Because you hit a set about 1 time in 8 and if 5 people are routinely seeing the flop you only need to get a miniscule amount in post flop when you hit a set to make them profitable.

But if you raise 4bb thin the field to 1 maybe 2 callers & have little cbet fold equity then you have to be able to build a 30bb+ pot everytime you hit a set oop just to make them break even. (Quite hard to maintain as demonstrated by the fact the most regulars are slightly -ev with these hands from ep.)

(& because so many weak players limp or min-raise their strong hands in ep at this level you can actually get away with limp re-raising these hands sometimes as your perceived range is really strong even though your actual range has no strong hands in
this completely un-balanced spot)

You'll see alot of the cardrunners guys on videos like 1 yr ago would never open limp at their mid-high stakes level but routinely limp these hands (hands that shoot up in ev when 4+ people see the flop) when they made low stakes videos for exactly these reasons.
Nowadays though they're hammering home a solid basic strategy that micro-limit players can build on as they move up.
(Rather than encourage open limping because they're unlikely to understand the reasoning behind it or apply it correctly in game time situations, even though its profitable in some loose passive games)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

What I am saying is that for questions to which the answer is easily determined by statistical evidence, we should answer the question based those statistics, not by normative analysis like yours above. I could easily write an argument for why it's bad to open small pairs UTG -- you'll be OOP most of the time, it's hard to get to a cheap showdown with marginal hands when you're OOP, you have very poor barreling equity -- and my reasons would be no more or less valid than yours. The way to know who is right is for people to open their databases and see if they're making money with these hands UTG.

---

Fair enough. And I would be interested in seeing stats as well. That said, with stats you can make assumptions with words as to why it is or is not profitable as I attempted to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yourfather

Fair enough. And I would be interested in seeing stats as well. That said, with stats you can make assumptions with words as to why it is or is not profitable as I attempted to do.

---

http://www.flopturnriver.com/Holdem-...-6-Players.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by al yell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by al yell

you're not necessarily trying to profit directly from opening small PP UTG.

---

Playing -EV hands from UTG at 100NL just to balance your range sounds like a waste of time and profit.

---

it might be a mistake to undervalue its importance. Plus, if you want to talk statistics, at a shorthanded table if you're dealt a pair you are almost always ahead PF. Anyone calling with worse is going to miss the flop roughly 70% of the time. +EV imo.

---

You're still just making assumptions without data to back it up. Over millions of hands 22-55 and even I think 66 have shown to be -EV UTG in 6max. I do not have the evidence with me but when I was told this by a millionaire I listened.

grunch:
raising or folding 22-55 will have so little impact one way or another that it really doesn't matter. unless you can show a pretty huge sample size where you are losing with them it doesn't matter.

I took out small PPs and added all suited aces. Seems to be working well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmind

.. but when I was told this by a millionaire I listened.

---

money talks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je7MqES4Wfk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bode

grunch:
raising or folding 22-55 will have so little impact one way or another that it really doesn't matter. unless you can show a pretty huge sample size where you are losing with them it doesn't matter.

---

this actually does matter (not the fact that in a vacuum opening 55 utg might be 0ev) in the sense that someone who plays these hands (and folds much more optimal hands) for whatever reason is missing some semi-basic poker theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bjsaust

I took out small PPs and added all suited aces. Seems to be working well.

---

Yeah that's a good strategy suited Aces are much stronger hands than low pp.

I think in practice though you'll find A6/A7s is profitable utg & all the suited aces only become profitable utg+1.

(I can't wait for someone to say - "no that's not true
33 is much stronger than A2s", c'mon you know you want to, lol ;) )

dont limp. lol

Was that millionaire an online player?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noble007

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yourfather

Fair enough. And I would be interested in seeing stats as well. That said, with stats you can make assumptions with words as to why it is or is not profitable as I attempted to do.

---

http://www.flopturnriver.com/Holdem-...-6-Players.php

---

Isn't that a limit chart, yo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silly String

Isn't that a limit chart, yo?

---

:shh: Yeah it is :roll: but except for stealing results in late position my longterm nl results aren't too dissimiliar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dev

Was that millionaire an online player?

---

ld0

I fail to see how low PPs would not have significantly more value in NL compared to limit. I would venture to say that low PPs would by far and away be the biggest disparity when crossing over b/n those games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silly String

I fail to see how low PPs would not have significantly more value in NL compared to limit. I would venture to say that low PPs would by far and away be the biggest disparity when crossing over b/n those games.

---

Lol - You insist on trying to call me out on nearly every post I make without fail.

If you can demonstrate statistical evidence that low pp are profitable on avg in early position in 6 max, great whatever, I can't be bothered anymore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

What I am saying is that for questions to which the answer is easily determined by statistical evidence, we should answer the question based those statistics, not by normative analysis like yours above. I could easily write an argument for why it's bad to open small pairs UTG -- you'll be OOP most of the time, it's hard to get to a cheap showdown with marginal hands when you're OOP, you have very poor barreling equity -- and my reasons would be no more or less valid than yours. The way to know who is right is for people to open their databases and see if they're making money with these hands UTG.

---

How many (total) hands would one have to play to get a statistically valid EV quantification of a specific situation like open-raising specifically 33 UTG in a 6-handed game?

Take my current database which has about 33,000 hands-- all at 6-max. Sometimes the games run 2-5 handed as well. I've gotten 33 UTG a whopping *drum roll*......... 12 times. 33 OTB, 29 times.

To do what you are saying people should do, they'd have to have literally millions of hands in their DB. And then the games have evolved greatly in that stretch and there'd be different situations for all the hands.... and we're back to verbal masturbation as opposed to statistical analysis, at least to some degree. Both have their merits.

OP, try something simple.. e.g. normal is to raise all pairs in all positions. Say UTG though you have 22 and there's a tough player on the button, fold it. Ditto if there are a couple shortstacks or other comparable table dynamics that decrease the value of IO hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bode

grunch:
raising or folding 22-55 will have so little impact one way or another that it really doesn't matter. unless you can show a pretty huge sample size where you are losing with them it doesn't matter.

---

this actually does matter (not the fact that in a vacuum opening 55 utg might be 0ev) in the sense that someone who plays these hands (and folds much more optimal hands) for whatever reason is missing some semi-basic poker theory.

---

elaborate please. im assuming your talking about SC's and Suited aces, in which case, why cant you have all of them in your range?

I was trying to say pretty much what lukie just posted. You would probably need atleast 1/2 million hands to REALLY know if you were losing with a specific hand in a specific spot.

According to Sauce, over millions of hands from various databases, 22-66 is unprofitable UTG in 6max. But yeah I guess stakes would have an impact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

What I am saying is that for questions to which the answer is easily determined by statistical evidence, we should answer the question based those statistics, not by normative analysis like yours above. I could easily write an argument for why it's bad to open small pairs UTG -- you'll be OOP most of the time, it's hard to get to a cheap showdown with marginal hands when you're OOP, you have very poor barreling equity -- and my reasons would be no more or less valid than yours. The way to know who is right is for people to open their databases and see if they're making money with these hands UTG.

---

How many (total) hands would one have to play to get a statistically valid EV quantification of a specific situation like open-raising specifically 33 UTG in a 6-handed game?

Take my current database which has about 33,000 hands-- all at 6-max. Sometimes the games run 2-5 handed as well. I've gotten 33 UTG a whopping *drum roll*......... 12 times. 33 OTB, 29 times.

To do what you are saying people should do, they'd have to have literally millions of hands in their DB. And then the games have evolved greatly in that stretch and there'd be different situations for all the hands.... and we're back to verbal masturbation as opposed to statistical analysis, at least to some degree. Both have their merits.

---

You can reduce the necessary sample size if you analyze your data an intelligent manner. First, you don't have to look at 33 only. You can group all your small pairs since they don't play differently from one another at all outside of some very rare situations. Then you can look at your winrate from the HJ with these hands and compare it to your winrate UTG.

Still, I agree with your overall point, but I think the solution should be to seek out more data (like sauce did) or at least to fold these hands some of the time at tough tables, like you said.