Another question - If you limp with a medium pair like 99, a loose player raises after you and you end up heads up. What do you do here? Re-raise? Or save it for the flop if you think it hasnt hit him/her.

TW,

That's sort of my point. There's not a lot of things that are set in stone. Occaisionally I limp with aces, but there's got to be a good reason. The situation you detailed would be a classic example, it's a tough game, GOOD aggressive players are raising you almost every time you limp and if you raise in EP you're not getting any action. The cure is raise some marginal hands and limp some big ones and get to showdown to try to shake your image up. But this kind of game isn't going to be found at .25/.5. It's probably not going to be found at 5/10.

At the low limits people are just playing their cards. If they see a hand they want to play, they're playing come hell or high water. You can raise, three-bet, cap, it doesn't matter, they like this hand and are coming. Since they're going to play regardless, I'd just as soon jam the pot from the start to make sure we're getting money in and try to control the # of players. I personally don't like the play because I don't like letting players in for cheap, especially when they would have called a raise to play regardless. But if you're ok with the risk of letting a lot of players in for cheap should someone not raise, then limp-raise away...

Very interesting thread. I guess that I'm just not a tricky player. Everytime I get cute, I pay too much, too often. I can understand why some play this way, but the variance makes me nuts. I play it straight, and win slowly. I rarely suffer big swings. But, because I establish myself as a straight player, I win more bluffs than most.

"With AA, you either win a little or lose a lot."

If this is the wisdom of the best who's ever played the game, then it's sure good enough for Cactus Jack.

I have to say a few things about this-- while i cant totally disagree with redhouse's logic on the matter, i strongly disagree with limp reraising aces, almost EVER, except in the situation where you are on an ultra tight aggressive table, and if thats the case, you should just get your ass up and leave, because why would you bother with a table like that. From this it logically follows that you should basically NEVER limp RR aces, because if you are somewhere where thats a good play, your EV there is sideways at best...unless maybe you have good reason to beleive the game will change in short order.

Okay, that said- First off, i think that at loose tables, the limp-RR is sideways EV. The reason for this is that very often, if you limp and get another limper, you will very often not see a raise at a table like that (those tables are often passive anyway)... Lots of people wont even raise AK if they see 2-3 people already in a pot, and 88-99, and probly TT arent raising, and AQ sure as hell isnt raising...Maybe AKs or JJ-AA- otherwise, you are looking at a 6 way limped pot with AA, and your 'strong play' has just turned into a gargantuan screwup. Of course sometimes the limp-RR works really nicely, and then it was a strong play.

However, my opinion is just that the cons outweigh the pros in the end (Unless, like we established you are at a very TA table...).

The first thing that it does it it says to everyone 'hey ya'll! I have KK or AA! HA!! Your fucked! nyanya!' ... any player worth his salt, even a loose one is going to know exactly what you have, and there is a damn good chance that the KJ that you wanted in the pot soo bad will flop a J and muck his hand unimproved on the expensive streets. Thats exactly what i do in the face of a limp-RR.

Secondly, i must confess that i dont entirely understand the big thing about forcing opponents to make mistakes. If I have AA in 1p and limp, and 3 people limp behind, one guy raises, bb calls, i three bet, right?

Okay, so now the limpers have to put in more money with crap hands, right? Fine, but 5 people in, assuming they will call with one bet in already, they are getting 7.5/1 (right?) on thier calls! How is this a mistake? Isnt it a much bigger mistake for 55 to cold call a raise with a dominated hand, than it is to endup in a monster pot with that holding? I mean, correct me if im wrong, because im not much for math, but i think the bigger mistake is the cold callers and not the limp-RR callers once the pot gets huge. From what i can tell, building up a monster pot with AA is actually going to cause the chasers mistakes to be not as bad as they otherwise would be.

Also, if your at least at a somewhat loose table, you can be assured some callers, and you are a heavy fave to win an avg/midsize pot, and thats cool. However, while you are still getting decent odds in a monster pot, losing a pot like that is an absolute disaster, and in addition to that, once the pot gets big enough, your almost guaranteed to have to show your aces down because of the odds the pot is giving you, even if your about 90% sure you are no good. Its kindof like the opposite of implied odds. I never knew what reverse implied odds were, but if thats not them, then it should be.

So in conclusion, my basic argument is:
(a) Limp-RR with aces CAN be okay at a very specific type of table, but you shouldnt be at that table unless you have a pretty damn good reason to be there.

(b) It announces your hand way too much...the worst i have EVER seen anyone limpRR with is queens. And that was exactly ONCE in my entire poker life. I personally have done it once with 44 (drunk of course), once with AKo, and once with JTs (in a 9 way raised 4/8 pot, just for fun- flopped a boat there! muahaha!) Every other time its been AA.
-This decreases your payoffs- i.e. postflop, your winnings are minimized, even though your pf winnings are maxed.

(c) It builds a pot big enough that it makes your hand very hard to lay down except in the face of the ridiculous action or an obviously bad board (4 flush for ex.)
-Thus, it maximizes your losses

(d) It seems to me that it mitigates the severity of your opponents mistakes (if there are a fair amt of callers anyway) because they will be getting 7-8/1 to call there, instead of 2/1, 3/1, etc.... it allows people to put good money in after bad money.

(e) When it fails it is an EV disaster to the point that even if the benefits when its pulled off to perfection outweigh the detriments of the failures, failure is bad enough that any one or two of the above con factors, would in my opinion push the play way into the realm of plays that i would almost never make, except in scenario (1) in which case id probly go look for the nearest strip club or glory hole and hemorrage my money off that way instead of sweat it out in an eagles nest or a rock garden.

Whew! Okay, theres my comprehensive thought on the matter. Sorry to subject you all to that, but hey, you guys asked for it! Off to go running. Without a shirt of course.

Good points Mecos. Reading my earlier posts I haven't exactly been clear. Let me summarize what I was trying to say:

I think limp-reraising is a strong move on loose aggressive tables where you have a lot of fish entering/raising the pot with weak holdings - even if some of them have implied odds hands or drawing hands.

Just as you may debate limping on a table where you think an EP raise will only win you the blinds, your decision to try and limp-reraise on a loose-aggressive table should also depend on your position and how you read the table and the likelihood of getting a raise out of someone who acts later.

On a tight aggressive table, I acutally don't like it as much. As you pointed out, it gives away too much information and will probably kill any action you may have got after the flop from guys who hit top pair on the board. But on loose low limit tables where people regularly 3 bet with hands like 88 or even AQo, you only need a couple of dumbasses to make this a profitable play. It may lure in the good players to play suited connectors (which have the best shot of taking AA down), but the bad plays are bad enough to cover this loss of pot equity and more (imo). I actually ran some simulations on Turbo back when I had it, and though imperfect, they confirmed this expectation. Can't reporoduce it right now... but I will if I ever buy it again.

About my forcing mistakes argument. Here it is again. Hopefully I can make sense this time.

55 will flop a set about 1/7.5 of the time. Factoring in the odds of it losing to a straight, flush or higher set or full house(being a multiway pot), lets say that 55 wins 5 handed pots 1/9 of the time. Preflop, 55Guy is getting 4-1 on his money. He needs 8-1 for this to be an even call (preflop), but because he thinks he can pick up the remaining 4 small bets later on if he hits his set, he's happy seeing the flop for 1 (implied odds). If you force him to pay 3 bets, he now has to make up 12 small bets. You're destroying his implied odds. Sure, after he's already put in 1 bet and you pull off your cunning limp-reraise, he's getting 7.5-1. But the overall play is now heavily -ve EV.

Similarly, if he holds Ax or Kx suited, the odds of flopping a flush or flush draw are about 8/1. He wants to see the flop cheap and then proceed if he flops good and then has a made hand or improved odds. He's waaay behind preflop. The only hands that arent in major trouble against aces in a multiway pot are suited connectors (89s etc).

Also note that if your re-raise forced anyone out, you've A) collected some free money and B) screwed 55Guy and Co over because they want lots of callers.

So basically, you want people to pay while they're behind, which against Aces is always early in the hand. Unimproved aces are in a reverse implied odds position. That is, they are at their strongest early, and at their weakest late - when all the trash has dropped out, and you have no clue if people have hit draws or not. Someone said aces win a little or lose a lot. On a loose table, I believe they can win a lot or lose a lot. The key is to make everyone pay before they can see the flop and reevaluate their hand. If your five opponents all hold suited/connected cards or small pairs, generally only one or two of them are going to flop big or a flop a good draw. Those are going to stay in the hand anyway, whatever the preflop action might have been. You want to extract everything you can from the guys who don't flop good and drop out.

The principle is the same as making people pay for a draw. Just think of the flop as the drawing cards. Here's an example that a little more conventinal to make my point more explicit. 4 handed pot, you hold A10s and limped in EP. Flop comes 10h9c5c. You bet, the next two call, and the button raises. The cheating bastards go into a huddle and flip up their cards. They show you 2c3c, KJo and 87o and tell you that between them, they have draws to a flush, 3 different straights, and a couple of overcards to boot. They claim that each one of them will individually be getting correct pot odds to call anything you bet. But since they hate variance, they just want to see how it plays out and they beg you to just call and check through to the river. What do you do? Thats a hell of a lot of outs for the field, but you should definitely reraise here since you have the best of it with your made hand and will get 3-1 on your money. Its the same principle with jamming preflop with big pairs. Get the money in when you're in front.

Some miscellaneous stuff

- My point is not so much that you should try and limp-reraise as often as possible. What I'm arguing here is that its a solid profitable play when it works.
- Selection of when to try it depends a lot on reads. If i'm in EP and a maniacs are still to act, I'll normally go for it.
- Creating huge pots invites a lot of chasing, but also puts a lot of money in your pocket. I think a lot of the distaste for this move comes from a preference for winning three $20 pots to one $65 pot. Avoiding high variance is obviously a valid reason for avoiding big pots, but thats different from the profitability argument.
- The tilt factor should be considered (AA beaten by A5 due to huge pot can get to the best of us).
- I think it works best againt loose fish (gives away too much info to smart players).
- The potential for getting into a multiway unraised pot does exist and this is a major disaster. For the record, I also consider winning the blinds uncontested with AA to be a disaster.
- Limp RR with KK is very different. There are a lot of hands like Axs examples i discussed earlier, that will face a marginal call after you reraise. With KK, you don't want the weak aces to be playing because they are definitely not going to fold if an ace hits. They're more likely to fold to a straight up raise where the mistake is 'take it or leave it kind' as opposed to a 'run away' kind. Limp-RR with QQ (like you said) can be big trouble on loose tables.

Basically, the only thing I've really found objectionable here is the argument that you shouldnt create huge pots early with AA. There are reasons for not doing it - tilt, losing control of the betting, reduced chances of winning etc., but profitability is not one of them. The long explanation is above. The simpler one that I use at the table is this: You have the best hand. You want as much money to go in as possible.

Thats probably the longest thing I've written in my life. Good thing I'm getting paid for this.