Can you learn to beat the low limit game?

[Basil]

Hi.
I'm a total beginner and don't know much at all abour poker at this point. I have read one book so far and that's about it.
I have tried to play some lower limit games and I always get frustrated because people don't play the way they "should". I get called with 7 3 and the guy hit something on the river while I was clearly having the best hand up till 4th street. How do you play against people like that? Is there a way to win in the long run in these games?
I've also tried a few 2/4 games and they tend to work out a lot better.

I really want to master .5/1 before I move one though, but I don't know how!

Thanks.

[MegumiAmano]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi.
I'm a total beginner and don't know much at all abour poker at this point. I have read one book so far and that's about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What book?


[ QUOTE ]
I have tried to play some lower limit games and I always get frustrated because people don't play the way they "should". I get called with 7 3 and the guy hit something on the river while I was clearly having the best hand up till 4th street. How do you play against people like that? Is there a way to win in the long run in these games?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having opponents make mistakes is the way to win in the long run. Worrying about an opponent who just sucked out on you with odds he should not have been playing is the short run. That's not to say that you didn't make a mistake on that hand yourself though, which is why you'll see most people on this board focusing on specific decisions during individual hands.

[Basil]

It's a Swedish book.

I know I make tons of misstakes myself. I think what I wanted to know is if there IS a way of playing agains people that call and raise on everything and win, in the long run. Sure THAT person loses in the long run with odds like that, but then comes another, and another ....

[MegumiAmano]

That exact question gets asked and answered constantly in the Micro-Limit forum. It's a great forum to read and study. As I'm also in the process of learning, I've found that trying to answer people's questions (in my mind) before reading the replies is pretty helpful.

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
I have tried to play some lower limit games and I always get frustrated because people don't play the way they "should". [...] Is there a way to win in the long run in these games?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I've also tried a few 2/4 games and they tend to work out a lot better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt you've played enough hands at either limit to conclude if you're a winner in each level, much less to have an idea of your win rate, so I wouldn't be too results-oriented yet.

You might try posting a few hands where you were uncertain about your correct action in either micro or small stakes NL (depending on which game you play). It's much more constructive to focus on your actions rather than your financial results, which will sort themselves out in the long run anyways.

[Basil]

Nah I didn't see a point in posting hands as I really just wanted to know if the low (micro?) limit games are for those who just play any hand and hope to win, or if it's possible to get good at winning those games.

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
Nah I didn't see a point in posting hands as I really just wanted to know if the low (micro?) limit games are for those who just play any hand and hope to win, or if it's possible to get good at winning those games.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible. The key is to widen your starting hand standards so that you too are cold-calling with almost any two cards. This puts you on equal footing with everyone else to dish out the massive suckouts.

[webgator]

It is possible. I started out playing the nano-limits eight months ago and after learning the basics of the game moved up to the .50/1.00 level. I am currently earning about 2 bb/100 hands. Not that great to some, but good for me, considering I play only about 8 to 12 hours a week and usually only play max 2 tables.

I suggest Ed Millers Getting Started in Hold Em and Lee Jones Winning Low Limit Holdem. I have read both these several times and they have helped be substantially. I will be reading Ed Miller's Small Stakes Holdem next.

[Altaslim]

[ QUOTE ]
It is possible. The key is to widen your starting hand standards so that you too are cold-calling with almost any two cards. This puts you on equal footing with everyone else to dish out the massive suckouts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shame on you... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really just wanted to know if the low (micro?) limit games are for those who just play any hand and hope to win, or if it's possible to get good at winning those games.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible. The key is to widen your starting hand standards so that you too are cold-calling with almost any two cards. This puts you on equal footing with everyone else to dish out the massive suckouts.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is really bad advice. When people post about their difficulty winning in soft games in the small stakes forum, they can expect to be told sarcastically to move up to $100-$200 immediately, but in the beginners forum such jokes should be avoided.

When people call too much, value bet more. That is a very important skill to practice. Rarely slow-play. If people will call on the flop with no pair and no draw, there is little reason not to bet with a monster on the flop. Don't bluff or semi-bluff.

People will still hit crazy runner-runner draws. That's a sign the game is good. Very frequently, they will pay you off the whole way with a weak draw or a weak hand, and quietly fold on the river or at showdown. The net result is that you will find these games much more profitable than if your opponents were more selective. Some people beat $0.50-$1 for abut 5 BB/100 despite the high rake, while 2 BB/100 is a fine win rate in a tough game with a proportionately low rake.

It is not right to play garbage in response to losing a few hands against garbage. You can play more loosely against loose players than you can against tight players, but you still want to play hands that are going to be profitable on average. When someone incorrectly limps with hands like T9o, than makes marginal hands like ATo worth more. I would fold with ATo in early position in a tight game, but it is a profitable hand in early position in a loose game. A hand like J7o should lose in any type of game except from the blinds or to steal the blinds.

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
That is really bad advice. When people post about their difficulty winning in soft games in the small stakes forum, they can expect to be told sarcastically to move up to $100-$200 immediately, but in the beginners forum such jokes should be avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I get called with 7 3 and the guy hit something on the river while I was clearly having the best hand up till 4th street. How do you play against people like that? I really want to master .5/1 before I move one though, but I don't know how!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You might try posting a few hands where you were uncertain about your correct action in either micro or small stakes NL (depending on which game you play). It's much more constructive to focus on your actions rather than your financial results, which will sort themselves out in the long run anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Nah I didn't see a point in posting hands as I really just wanted to know if the low (micro?) limit games are for those who just play any hand and hope to win

[/ QUOTE ]

My constructive comment quotient starts dropping once it becomes obvious that a poster is less interested in improving and more interested in whining about getting sucked out on.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

My constructive comment quotient starts dropping once it becomes obvious that a poster is less interested in improving and more interested in whining about getting sucked out on.

[/ QUOTE ]
I sympathize, but other beginners read will read this thread.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
You can play more loosely against loose players than you can against tight players

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am) but I had always thought if the table is loose, play tight. If the table is tight, play loose.

[Basil]

[ QUOTE ]
My constructive comment quotient starts dropping once it becomes obvious that a poster is less interested in improving and more interested in whining about getting sucked out on.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no desire to win money at this point. I never whined. I was trying to explain my situation. I asked because I want to know if it's even possible to to win these games. How else can I get better? If playing .5/1 gets me nowhere because it's more a matter of luck than anything else, why bother playing .5/1? Should I try playing .5/1 for a year and then come to a conclusion? What are these forums for if not to ask questions? Isn't this the beginner section? What are you doing in it if evrything about poker is crystal clear to you?

I'm sorry that I asked a beginners question in a beginners forum

Where exactly did I whine in my question? Where did I whine in the reply I made? I think you see whine where there is none. Want cheeze with that?

I find it sad you feel a need to make fun of me when all I wanted was an answer to a serious question. Instead you have to come here and act as everyone has played poker their entire life. I have news for you, you were also new to poker once and I don't want to make the same mistakes as you did if I can avoid it. But go ahead and keep slamming me. After all im a "noob" and you're not eh?

Jesus some people...

Up untill now this forum has been a great resource.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am) but I had always thought if the table is loose, play tight. If the table is tight, play loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some ways that's true I believe, but it's only part of the story. Some hands go way up in value when you know that 7 people will be in a raised pot preflop: suited connectors and small pairs, although you'd prefer to only play them for one bet, can take down really big pots. Other hands lose value very quickly with each additional opponent: Offsuit big cards (but not monsters) like AJo, KQo, etc. So yes, playing tight is a good idea in games like this, but not so tight that you fold good drawing hands that are getting pot odds to be profitable.

Hey, I like your question so much I think I'll paraphrase it (unless you give me permission to use it verbatim) and add it to the wiki page on game texture (http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/Game_texture) and maybe link it from the FAQ (http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/Beginners_FAQ)

[OrianasDaad]

Your lack of theoretical gambling knoweledge is going to make it tough for you to beat even the fishiest micro-limit games. The proof for this is evidenced in the following statement: [ QUOTE ]
I always get frustrated because people don't play the way they "should".

[/ QUOTE ]

If every body played poker correct, according to theory, then only the house would win in the long run, as all our money is raked away. It is the mistakes that others make that give the tight, aggressive player an inherent edge.

Focus not on results, but on process.

You need books. I think every player should start with "Theory of Poker". Combine this with, get "Getting Started in Hold'em", since TOP is something of a dry read, and it is a bit advanced. Once you've finished these two, proceed to "Small Stakes Hold'em". You won't need any other books for some time to come, and play at .5/1 after you read them will pay for them in short order.

Bookmark this post, so when you become a winning player at micro-limits, you can see from where you came, and why some may have responded to your question in a way you don't understand.

Other posters: Remember from where you came. Nobody here is God's gift to poker, and this is the Beginner's forum.

[Rosencrantz1]

I, for one, think your OP is totally valid.

My advice -- as others have mentioned -- is to start with Ed Miller's GETTING STARTED IN HOLD'EM. I started with the Jones book (WINNING LOW LIMIT HOLD'EM) and while it's an ok first book, GSIH is really where it's at. It's very well written, easy to follow (even for a beginner) and will explain the most important underlying principals to low-limit hold'em.

As someone who plays primarily .25/.50 on-line, I'm totally sympathetic to that feeling of "How could you chase with 73o and beat me AGAIN?" but the other posters on this thread are right: over the long term you will WIN when the people you play against make bad calls.

I've found the best way to deal with those horrible, silly suck-outs is to say to yourself "I'm really glad his winning this hand will re-enforce all of his bad habits."

GL to you.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I like your question so much I think I'll paraphrase it (unless you give me permission to use it verbatim) and add it to the wiki page on game texture (http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/Game_texture) and maybe link it from the FAQ (http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/Beginners_FAQ)

[/ QUOTE ]

By all means, feel free to quote it how you wish.

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no desire to win money at this point. I never whined. I was trying to explain my situation. I asked because I want to know if it's even possible to to win these games. How else can I get better?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You might try posting a few hands where you were uncertain about your correct action in either micro or small stakes NL (depending on which game you play). It's much more constructive to focus on your actions rather than your financial results, which will sort themselves out in the long run anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took the time to give you honest, good advice. You chose to ignore it. That is your perogative, but if you're not going to pay attention when people tell you how to improve, then don't bitch about it when they stop taking you seriously.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I've found the best way to deal with those horrible, silly suck-outs is to say to yourself "I'm really glad his winning this hand will re-enforce all of his bad habits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. That's what really seems to keep poker profitable.

In the OP's defense, he's hardly alone in feeling this frustration. Ed Miller thought "game too loose to beat" fallacy was important enough to address in GSIH. I had someone on the Psych forum the other day swear up and down that low-limit poker is detrimental for learning (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=psych&Number=2839804) because you'd only learn bad habits (which is somewhat true, but ONLY if you have no ability to adjust to tighter games). Different issue, admittedly, but a related one.

The point is, there are tons of people convinced they can't beat loose games. If they're willing to listen, I'd rather show them why they're wrong than berate them.

[AASooted]

[ QUOTE ]
I have tried to play some lower limit games and I always get frustrated because people don't play the way they "should". I get called with 7 3 and the guy hit something on the river while I was clearly having the best hand up till 4th street. How do you play against people like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Over the long term, happily and profitably. There are sessions when their draws always come in. That's variance. That's poker.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a way to win in the long run in these games?


[/ QUOTE ]

Make them pay for their ridiculous two-out draw when you have the better hand. They'll end up folding (or even better, calling because they think you're bluffing) on the river most of the time. Sure, you'll lose some big pots sometimes. If you're playing well, you'll win more of them than you lose over the long haul.

The advice I've seen on the forums that applies best here is that you're trying to win money, not pots. In other words, you need to accept that the price you pay against players who have no idea what they're doing is that they're going to draw out on you every once in a while -- but they won't do it enough to keep you from making a lot of money from their mistakes. If you can't learn to accept that, poker may not be the game for you.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can play more loosely against loose players than you can against tight players

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am) but I had always thought if the table is loose, play tight. If the table is tight, play loose.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it is correct to loosen up in both cases.

It is a common misconception that you should play more tightly in a loose game. Your opponents are playing weaker hands than they should, so more hands have a positive expected value against their hands. SSHE says repeatedly to play more loosely against loose opponents.

At a tight table, you can play more hands because you are effectively in later position. You can profitably steal and limp to steal on the flop with hands that would do poorly against the marginal hands your opponents are incorrectly folding. At an overly tight table, players let you attack the blinds a disproportionate fraction of the time.

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
In the OP's defense, he's hardly alone in feeling this frustration. Ed Miller thought "game too loose to beat" fallacy was important enough to address in GSIH. I had someone on the Psych forum the other day swear up and down that low-limit poker is detrimental for learning (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=psych&Number=2839804) because you'd only learn bad habits (which is somewhat true, but ONLY if you have no ability to adjust to tighter games). Different issue, admittedly, but a related one.

The point is, there are tons of people convinced they can't beat loose games. If they're willing to listen, I'd rather show them why they're wrong than berate them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I admit that I was frustrated that I felt OP was unwilling to listen to advice on what's worked for me in learning to beat low-limit games, and instead preferred to dismiss what I said as being "pointless" and contine to fixate on low-limit being unbeatable. In hindsight I regret making any more posts in this thread after the first, but admittedly after taking the time to reply and having my advice thrown back at me I wasn't feeling terribly charitable.

I'll add that if you think that my strategy of "playing any two" is a losing one, then it should be obvious that playing against such a strategy must be profitable. Poker is a zero-sum game: if someone is losing money, someone else is winning it. Hopefully this will help convince OP of whether low-limit games are beatable.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I like your question so much I think I'll paraphrase it (unless you give me permission to use it verbatim) and add it to the wiki page on game texture (http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/Game_texture) and maybe link it from the FAQ (http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/Beginners_FAQ)

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope the answer you add will be correct, and not the common fallacy that you should play more tightly in loose games.

I think HPFAP says that in a maniacal game, you can play only QQ+ and AK and show a profit. Yes, and I can beat a weak chess player while blindfolded. That doesn't mean it is the optimal way to play. SSHE says to play more hands in loose games.

You mention that AJo is hurt by having multiple opponents. That depends what they are playing. If they are playing pairs and broadway cards, AJo is a favorite heads-up, but is an underdog in multiway pots. If they are playing too many Axo hands, AJo does fine. If they are playing random hands, AJo does fine. According to PokerRoom's stats (https://www.pokerroom.com/games/evstats/pairStats.php), AJo does much better in the loose $1-$2 game than it does in the tight $5-$10 game. Keep in mind that people will get involved with just about anything that beats AJ. The question is whether you want the extra calls/overlimps with hands like A8s. AJo benefits from the addition of these marginal hands.

[SheridanCat]

I'm late to the party on this thread, but here goes anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
I have tried to play some lower limit games and I always get frustrated because people don't play the way they "should". I get called with 7 3 and the guy hit something on the river while I was clearly having the best hand up till 4th street. How do you play against people like that? Is there a way to win in the long run in these games?
I've also tried a few 2/4 games and they tend to work out a lot better.


[/ QUOTE ]

First, don't be fooled into thinking that playing higher is easier just because people are playing "more correctly". They often aren't playing more correctly. I guarantee your sample size is too small to indicate anything significant about your play yet.

Here's the thing you must understand to be a successful long-term player. When you face someone playing 73o, you may not have the pot pushed to you, but you still win. That's right. Your short term results were negative, but the overall situation is +EV for you. If you played that player (or players like him) exclusively, you will win over the long term.

You want your opponents playing crappy hands badly - that's how you win. You will have frustrations and experience what many call "bad beats" but you need to understand that there are no bad beats. If you get your money in with the best of it, then you still win theoretically. Winning the pot is only the immediate effect; long-term you are a winner.

[ QUOTE ]

I really want to master .5/1 before I move one though, but I don't know how!


[/ QUOTE ]

Play solid poker. Do not get sucked into playing junk because you see others doing it. When you have a solid hand, raise for value. Don't bluff the unbluffable. Don't slowplay unless you're holding a monster hand. Don't cold call. If you feel you want to cold call, raise instead; if you don't think the hand is good enough to raise, fold.

Regards,

T

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no desire to win money at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...

[ QUOTE ]
I asked because I want to know if it's even possible to to win these games. How else can I get better? If playing .5/1 gets me nowhere because it's more a matter of luck than anything else, why bother playing .5/1?

[/ QUOTE ]

From someone who has been playing cash (at a level 10X below yours--.05/.10), OF COURSE the games are beatable. Do you consider yourself a failure unless you have a winning session?

Why are you fixated on the .50/1 level? If you're looking to improve, step down a level and work on your skills. Read a book. Then move up.

Your post is reminiscent of about 200 on these boards. I think I even posted something like this when I started. Not too knowledgable about the game, bad run, trying to justify it. The fault usually resided with me. Playing too many marginal/submarginal starting hands and going too far with them.

My advice (pretty much taken from SSHE:
1. Limit your starting hands: I don't currently use Poker Tracker or anything like that, but UB gives table stats so I can see how many hands I'm limping/raising. I average about 3-4 hands played per orbit--and that includes sitting in the blinds. Are you doing a lot of calling/cold calling?
2. Improve (and become more agressive) post-flop play. This is where you will make your money. Even I've noticed that I've become more aggressive as of late, and I'm willing to let go of good hands where 5 other people are still in the pot with good draws against me.

Lastly, cards are cards. You WILL eventually have a bad run. Expect it and deal with it. If you're having a bad session and it's affecting your mindset, quit. The internet isn't going anywhere.

It's all one long session. Those numbnuts with 73o will suck out short term, and they'll pay off long term.

[ QUOTE ]


I've found the best way to deal with those horrible, silly suck-outs is to say to yourself "I'm really glad his winning this hand will re-enforce all of his bad habits."

GL to you.

[/ QUOTE ]


Great attitude. Love it.

[Basil]

Was away over the weekend.
Thanks for the serious replies.
I have ordered the books you guys have mentioned and won't play anymore until I have read them.

[Cooker]

It is as simple as this: the worse the players play, the easier it is to beat the games and the more you can beat them for. The play money games are the easiest games in the world to beat, the micro limit games are next and the difficulty moves right on up in stakes. For everytime your AQ hits TPBK and loses at the micro limits due to a suckout, there would be several times you get no action or get shown AK, AA, or AK at the higher limits.

Also, if you have a big hand, you want them to call all the way down. If they correctly fold, then you make less money in the long run.