Lots of ways to punish limpers

[c.heck]

Daniel Negreanu limps too. I'm not saying all limpers are bad, but the one's that limp/call a 75% hand range regardless of the size of the raise are bad, and I'm happy to exploit their badness. I'm happy to play you if you show up at the table I'm on, but I don't play poker as an ego contest, or at least try not to. I always try to play against worse players. If that's you, then I'm especially happy to play you. If not, then probably not.

Sometimes I play bad, other time I'm lucky.
Anyway, I like bluffers like you.

 

[pedrovitorcosta]

I didn't understand, the person punished at the end was you, they lost the least they were willing to lose and you stopped winning more without giving information...

 

[Sunz of Beaches]

I just don't see your point here. I was in the big blind. Should I have raised with 74suited from the big blind, with two limpers who likely have a better hand than I do who call every preflop raise? Hands like 7-4suited are at the bottom of their range. Why wouldn't I check and see what the flop brings?

Again, I am talking about a total strategy, not just one hand. playing smallball with marginal hands and big pots with good hands. If you can only accept that "punishing limpers" means raising them, that seems like a closed minded position.

Sorry i did not realize u were in the big (thought u limped along) which makes ur play even less of a punishment. U checked down hoping to win at showdown which is the correct play imo but there is absolutely no punishment involved.

No u are not talking total strategy, its actually the opposite. U used two postflop examples where everything went ur way. Thats result oriented thinking.

Good luck.

 

[WrongUsername]

playing a tight style usually works against limpers

 

[Dobbler1]

No u are not talking total strategy, its actually the opposite. U used two postflop examples where everything went ur way. Thats result oriented thinking.

The first paragraph is about a strategy for making limpers pay with sub-par opening hands, and the 2 examples are the other side of the strategy. If you don't understand what the strategy I'm talking about is, then ask, don't tell me it's not there.

Seriously, what's the problem? I am really getting the sense you just want to argue with me, and have no real interest in discussing poker strategy.

 

[Sunz of Beaches]

The first paragraph is about a strategy for making limpers pay with sub-par opening hands, and the 2 examples are the other side of the strategy. If you don't understand what the strategy I'm talking about is, then ask, don't tell me it's not there.

Seriously, what's the problem? I am really getting the sense you just want to argue with me, and have no real interest in discussing poker strategy.

The problem is that u dont seem to get that there is only one way to punish limpers. Those 2 other examples have nothing to do with punishing limpers.

U seem to be a very stubborn (and clueless) guy and i give up with u now. U dont even have to anwer anymore (which u will do anyway because thats what stubborn people do) because u are now directly on my ignore list.

 

[Dobbler1]

The problem is that u dont seem to get that there is only one way to punish limpers. Those 2 other examples have nothing to do with punishing limpers.

U seem to be a very stubborn (and clueless) guy and i give up with u now. U dont even have to anwer anymore (which u will do anyway because thats what stubborn people do) because u are now directly on my ignore list.

Of course I'm going to respond, not only because I'm stubborn, which is true, but because you went out of your way to insult me, and it's a pretty normal reaction to respond to an insult.

The ironic thing here is that you could have not posted this last post. If I'm clueless and a lost cause, what's the benefit of pointing it out and telling me you're done with the discussion? Maybe you won't see this post, but maybe people can learn something from your response, and hopefully this post adds some clarity.

If anyone thinks I'm clueless and wants to be productive by.... oh I don't know.... cluing me in, then I'm happy to hear what you have to say. I might not fully agree with you, but I will be polite and try to remain constructive.

 

[christovam]

I found it interesting that you say it's fun to punish limpers. I will remember that when when I punish table limpers. The bad thing is when someone limps with monster play, like AA or KK. They think that way it hides game, even though it is riskier. The worst is that they end up taking the hand. This happens to me several times at free or micro limit tables.

 

[Dobbler1]

I found it interesting that you say it's fun to punish limpers. I will remember that when when I punish table limpers. The bad thing is when someone limps with monster play, like AA or KK. They think that way it hides game, even though it is riskier. The worst is that they end up taking the hand. This happens to me several times at free or micro limit tables.

Sometimes limp/trapping with big hands works. I could imagine a table dynamic where it might be a good idea. Just not mostly, IMO. Mostly I think it's a suboptimal play that can be exploited by reasonable play.

Someone who frequently plays cards chat freerolls often limps, but only enters a moderate/small percentage of pots. I treat their limps differently than a few other players that limp in order to play a large number of hands.

 

[mara2259]

I like exploiting limpers. It's typically very easy, and it's often very profitable. The main way I do that is to make pots expensive preflop with a tighter range so that it's a bad bet to call with the typical wide range a serial limper enters a pot with. I'm willing to raise a limp 7, 10, or even 15 BB...even more, if someone is willing to call it with 74suited.

Today I got to have fun punishing limpers in a different way. I had 74suited in the BB and two serial limpers limped the pot. The board was all uncoordinated low cards, and a 7 hit witch gave me the best hands against KQ suited and KJ off. Just checked down all the way, small pot, but it felt good to win. I assume these guys were hoping I'd raise their limp (as I often do), but instead I took a small pot with a horrible preflop hand that I could easily have been pushed off preflop. A few hands later, from UTG+1, one of these guys limps again. I have 97clubs in the highjack, and I'm the chip leader, so I limp behind. The flop comes 3h-3c-10c and the open limper leads 1/3 pot and I raise and take it down. It's fun winning pots in general, but it's so much fun punishing attempts at "cute" plays.

Tonight the limper showed first a pair of pocket jacks, and a few hands later a pair of aces. He may have played at a loss, but in doing so punished guys like you, who are counting with a trash hand to hit a couple of banks.

 

[Dobbler1]

Tonight the limper showed first a pair of pocket jacks, and a few hands later a pair of aces. He may have played at a loss, but in doing so punished guys like you, who are counting with a trash hand to hit a couple of banks.

I've mentioned this already, but I'll repeat it. People who limp rarely, or who limp all hands but don't play many pots aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who limp in order to see tons of flops. Everybody gets aces and jacks once and a while, but no one gets them every hand. If someone will call my big raises with crap most of the time, then I don't mind running into a legit hand from time to time. I mean you can run into big hands from limpers and from normal preflop raisers.

Also, who said anything about trash hands? I play a pretty balanced range I think.