Does anyone like this line?

I was in a 20/40 game with a unique player sitting behind me. His VPIP was 65%, pfr was close to 30. He always raised first in with any playable hand. His postflop play was to keep betting if he had the lead no matter what flopped but he rarely 3bet without top pair or a good draw. He also chased to the river on most hands. His fold % on the river was close to 70% but he would call down with ace high often.

If he didn't have the lead preflop, he was fairly weak after the flop. He'd call the flop bet and muck the turn unless he hit something.

The way I decided to play him was to limp all hands that I decided to play. These included most aces, 2 paints and pairs over 7. I played every BB against him except for offsuited baby cards. If I missed the flop, I'd check fold. If I hit the flop, I'd check-raise him on the turn. He'd always call the check-raise and then usually fold the river or call if he had ace high on a rag board or a pair.

A friend of mine really disagrees with this approach. His preference is to open-raise with a slightly larger range of hands and use his opponent's weakness when he didn't have the lead preflop to bet him out. He argues that given his weakness, laydowns would be much easier on the turn against his raise.

The reason I like my play better is because there was usually someone else in the pot and you normally had to hit a flop to win the game. So seeing a flop cheaply and using his predictable aggression to trap people in between seemed to be more profitable.

What do you think?

I don't play anywhere near your limits so I will not comment on your approach.

However, I am curious as to how well this player did, generally. I have seen players like this at 25c/50c and 50c/1 and often they can run over a table. This makes me think that it may be a viable strategy when table conditions are perfect (not that I have tried it).

One session isn't enough to draw any conclusions about the profitability of his play. I beat him for 50 bets in 400 hands but he was doing well against many players who were trying to bluff him.

My friend who I consider to be a better player than me made a good comment. The biggest reason he doesn't like the way I played is that it is unsustainable. Against even a bad opponent, this type of play only works 3 or 4 times before they adjust. This guy never adjusted. Even so, trapping plays are not good for the game and tends to kill the action and make everyone play more seriously. I agree with him there.