I always see criticism of those who clean up. Is it so wrong to go into a clean pre-flop?
To limp or not to limp is a pretty personal choice and honestly, it depends on your playing style.
The thing is, when you look at poker within the limits we play (low and mid stakes) and the most popular theories on how to play (GTO and Exploitative Play), there's a general consensus that open-limping pre-flop isn't great.
Why? Poker is a game that relies on aggressive actions to give us an edge over our opponents. I can't remember which author said it, but poker is "a game of aggressive actions." Being aggressive gives us initiative in the hand and an edge over the villain.
When we open-raise pre-flop, we're saying we have a range of hands we've decided to play aggressively, and at the same time, we're selecting which opponents get to call and enter the pot.
When we open-limp, we also have a range, but our range is so wide it could include almost 70% of all hands. And by limping, we lose the initiative and often create multi-way pots, which isn't great for us in the long run, no matter what kind of hand you have.
Example: Let's say we have Aces pre-flop and we want to set a trap for our opponents. So, we're in UTG and we limp with AA. The MP calls our limp, the CO calls, the BTN calls, and the SB calls too. The BB checks. By doing this, we've given our opponents excellent
odds to enter the hand, and the player in the Big Blind didn't pay anything to see a flop!
Besides, AA is a great hand in a heads-up pot, but when three or more players are fighting for the pot, AA becomes a much more marginal hand. In this example, by limping, we allowed 4 other players to come along and share the
equity with us. A lot of the time, one of them will have called with something like 52s or 22 and end up hitting, and suddenly we're in a massive pot losing a huge stack. Why? Because we didn't take the initiative to be aggressive and raise pre-flop to narrow the field.
Passivity often gets punished, and aggression often gets rewarded. But then you might say, "If I raise with AA, everyone just folds." Great! You still win the blinds, and that adds up significantly in the long run.
I think limping can work in some specific tournament situations and at some high-stakes cash tables, but generally, the criticism most players have against limping isn't just a matter of taste—it's a logical, theory-based argument grounded in the experience of the world's best players who have developed and refined their strategies over the years.
If our hand isn't good enough to open-raise pre-flop, the best move is usually to fold and wait for one that is. We raise with AA, but we also raise with JTs, 76s, 33, 22, etc. We're raising with our range, not just with one specific hand.
The reason we play this way is that we believe limping creates more bad situations than good ones in the long run. It's an illusion to think that by limping we're being clever or setting traps for our opponents. The most likely outcome is that your opponent will mark you as a passive player, and there are many ways to exploit players who give away free information like that. We don't want to give our opponents any information, and aggression is a way to maintain a neutral game where our opponent can never know if our pre-flop raise is AA or 65s.