To limp or not to limp?

If you are playing no-limit hold 'em and everyone has folded ahead of you, then (assuming you are not in a blind) you have the option of folding yourself, calling the blind, or raising. Of these three options, taking the route of putting in only the amount of the big blind is an action commonly referred to as limping. Limping is often seen as a weak move and many strong players make it a point never, ever to limp in. Why such vehemence?

The most frequent point the never-limpers make is that by only betting the minimum, the person sitting in the big blind will not be required to put any more chips in the pot before the flop. The limper is in effect offering the big blind a free look at the flop, and in addition the small blind can still come in at only 1/2 price. Such generosity is not good business.

Also, by raising you force your opponents to "define" their hands somewhat. If they call a healthy raise, you can be reasonably sure they are likely holding big ranks, pairs or possibly suited connectors. When a flop then comes down something like 4c 7h 4s, it is rather unlikely that anyone hit a great hand with it. However someone playing out of the big blind who got to see the flop for free is actually more likely to holding a four than those who paid to see the flop. Now you are unsure of where you are, and even a good hand like AQ could be in trouble.

You certainly shouldn't limp in with very strong cards, like big pairs. The reason is that limping invites many players, not just the blinds, to see the flop cheaply. Maybe you think you will make more money with your big hand if more people are playing, but what you are really doing is making it much more likely that one of your opponents will out-draw you to a better hand. You can win just as much money against fewer opponents by raising than you would against many opponents by limping, but your odds of being beaten outright increase dramatically the more opponents you go up against. So don't limp with hands like jj or better.

Some players will limp in with drawing hands for the exact reasons that such hands pay off best against multiple opponents. For example it is not uncommon for someone in early position to limp in with something like Ac 8c, hoping a lot of people follow his lead, fatten the pot and make his flush draw potentially more profitable. Is this a good move or a bad move? I really don't know. It depends on a lot of things.

If you are playing against "loose" players - those who play a lot of hands and really don't like to fold - then seeing a lot of flops yourself for as cheaply as possible just seems to make sense to me. If you are at a very loose table (maybe a home game where your buddies have had a few beers) you can even take down a massive pot if someone has a weaker flush.

I know Chris Ferguson and Gus Hanson would disapprove, but I have limped in with suited aces, small pairs, and suited connectors (suited cards of consecutive ranks. 4s 5s, or 9c 10c, etc.) . Not often, but I have done it and will do it again.

But I do understand the anti-limping sentiment. I sense that it is really the passive nature of limping that is objectionable. Winning poker players usually try to control the table and by limping one allows a player in later position to assume the active roll with a raise. Players who like to dictate the pace of play are the most vocal anti-limpers. Perhaps they have a point.

Perhaps.

I welcome your thoughts.