Is It Possible To Win A Tight Hold 'em Game, Theoretically?

[gambledrum]

Can a good player expect to win when playing ultra-tight tables?

I'm a micro-small stakes hold 'em player. I decided a few months to start playing online, basically to play more hands per hour. I play anywhere from 0.25-50 to 1-2, for the most part. I've noticed an immense difference between B&M low stakes (in South Florida were restricted to 1-2 hold 'em) and online low stakes. Basically, the online players I'm running into tend to be much tighter than the B&M rooms. I'm currently playing at Royal Vegas Poker. Three to five players to the flop is the rule. Many times the blinds are folded by a raise. Keep in mind, I'm talking about 0.50-1 hold 'em. This is a complete contrast from playing 1-2 in the B&M rooms, where 7-9 players are the norm, and you almost never see blinds folding, even after multiple raises. So, there's a large difference between the pot sizes I've seen online and in person.

Miller states in SSH:
"If your opponents all played "perfect" poker, you could not possibly win in the long run. He goes on to say, "In fact, if you play in a casino or any place that takes a collection or rake, you would be doomed to lose as surely as if you played craps, roulette, or keno." Furthermore, he says, "Be glad your opponents refuse to fold; if they didn't, you might just go broke."

I often heard that you can expect to make 2 big bets per 100 hands, if you’re a good player. I’ve also heard that you could expect to make much more in ultra-loose games. But, what about ultra-tight games, with tricky players? Does the 2BB/100 hands scenario hold up? What is the proper sample size of hands to test your win rate on?

Essentially, I wondering if you can theoretically win a very tight game. Or, is it essential for the game to be somewhat loose to make money? Maybe I’m playing at the wrong website. Average pot sizes for a ten person 0.25-0.50 table are $2-3, at Royal Vegas Poker. But, when I check other sites, the average pot size tends to be larger ($3-4).

Basically, the way I see it, I’m having a harder time making money online because the pot sizes are small. When I hit, the pot isn’t nearly as big a B&M room, but when I miss, drawing odds are terrible.

Any insight?

[TripleH68]

People playing 'tight' poker is MUCH different than people playing 'perfect' poker.

You can beat these games and you make the majority of your $$ postflop.

[NLfool]

in general you should play the opposite of how your opponents play. Since many play loose you should play tight. A tight ring game is fairly easy to beat with position, may not be as profitable, you'll make less BB/100 but your variance will be much lower and most long time players will gladly sacrifice some earnings for less variance. I know, since the Party split or restructure I've experience the most insane swings.

[MicroBob]

There's almost no reason why you shouldn't be able to win at .25/.50 on ANY site.

kinda tight players who are sorta tricky post-flop are almost guaranteed to not be THAT freaking good at .25/.50. Some might be pretty decent....but not all of them....not even close.


[ QUOTE ]

Basically, the way I see it, I’m having a harder time making money online because the pot sizes are small. When I hit, the pot isn’t nearly as big a B&M room, but when I miss, drawing odds are terrible.

Any insight?


[/ QUOTE ]



You are not playing as many of your hands 'correctly' as you think you are.
Consider the possibility that it is YOUR play that you need to work on.
You are playing in games that should be crushable...yet you aren't crushing them.



The reason you aren't winning isn't because a winning player can ONLY win at loose games with terrible players.
The reason is that you are misplaying hands against mediocre to slightly not-so-horrid players and you don't even realize it.


Consider reasing and posting the micro-limits forum here. Much good advice to be had to improve your game.



note - I have never played on royal-vegas...but I refuse to believe that their .25/.50 games are very tough at all and couldn't easily be beaten for 2BB/100.

[RiverDood]

Sounds like you've got two different questions going on here.

1. Is the Royal Vegas .50/$1 game beatable? Sounds like it is. It's definitely tighter than the ultraloose games at B&M casinos, but by online standards, it is not supertight at all. 3-5 players seeing the flop means that at least one or two of them shouldn't be there. . . . If there's a lot of preflop raising, marginal hands shouldn't be limped from early positions (J9s; 33, etc.) About half the players at the table will realize this, and the other half won't. . . . Your job is to punish the limpers with well-aimed raises, reraises and c/rs that isolate their skinny draws heads up wherever possible, or force them to fold well before the river . . . . You also want to stop limping with stuff that only works well in the cheap, multiway pots that are common in loose passive games.

2. Can a truly ultra-tight game be beaten? Yes. Steal blinds. In an extreme case, if everyone else only plays AA, KK, QQ and AKs, you can pick up the blinds constantly by raising with weaker hands. But that's not really a scenario worth examining until much higher limits.

[csuf_gambler]

[ QUOTE ]
in general you should play the opposite of how your opponents play.

[/ QUOTE ]

terrible.

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in general you should play the opposite of how your opponents play.

[/ QUOTE ]

terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

come on - why don't you want to play qto against a 10/2/2 pf raiser /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[genya]

[ QUOTE ]
Can a good player expect to win when playing ultra-tight tables?


[/ QUOTE ]

Part of being a good player is not playing at ultra-tight tables, so I say that your statement is contradictory, because such a case would not exist.

[Niediam]

I almost hate to tell you this but online games where 4-5 people see the flop are considered VERY loose around here.

[pzhon]

I have had no trouble beating the Cryptologic full $1-$2 game, which some call tight.

Example:
MP1 posts. 3 folds, check, two folds, I raise in the CO with 98o, 4 folds. I net $2.50 = 1.25 BB.

Sometimes a maniac will win 6+ pots in a row, since the non-observant multitablers all give him credit for a hand when he calls on the flop and bets or raises the turn, even though he limps with almost every hand, never folds on the flop, and bets when checked to.

Playing tightly preflop is not the same thing as playing well on all 4 streets.

4-5 people to a flop is a very loose game for online play. Most of the money that is made and lost in poker is after the flop, not before the flop. Preflop numbers are not the only thing to look for when you are searching for a table.

[gambledrum]

Thanks for the feedback.
Per your example...
I don't see myself raising with 98o in the CO. I see myself folding. Why would you raise in that situation? Do you routinely raise in the CO (with any cards) just because of your position? Is that theoretically correct? Maybe I need to adjust my game. I understand that what you're trying to do: get everyone to fold. In that situation you were successful. But, what if you're not? Ed Miller cautions against playing offsuited cards below ten, even on the button. I used to play many offsuited cards on the button, but I tend to just fold them now (98o, T8o, T9o, 97o, etc.).

[gambledrum]

I've often wondered if playing too many tables is bad for your win rate. I say this, because you're not able to concentrate on the tendencies of specific players when you're playing four tables, as much as when you're playing one table.
Ed Miller states in SSH:
"Every cent of your long-term profit playing poker come from exploiting your opponents' errors and predictable tendencies."
I'm wondering if I'm missing those "predictable tendencies" by playing four to five tables at once. I'm playing fairly "generically." Unless I spot consistent patterns at a particular table (a maniac who always raises, lots of calling stations, large frequency of cold calling, etc.), I tend to play "by the book." It's more difficult for me to spot tendencies when I'm playing at multiple tables, as opposed to one table. But, can that really be a big win/rate issue?

[gambledrum]

Really?
Shouldn't you just make appropriate adjustments?
Has every "pro" through the years left ultra-tight tables when they've seen them? The literature I have read suggests that the poker players of today (due to the popularity of the game) are looser than yesteryear. Does that mean that at one time in the past the tables were too tight to win at? I wouldn't think so.

[gambledrum]

Are you basically saying that you should almost always open raise in a short-handed game, as opposed to calling, in an effort to fold blinds?
At the Royal Vegas Poker 0.50-1.00 game I'm generally not raising with KQs, KJs, ATs in early to middle position. But, in the B&M looser games I raised with those hands in early to middle position most of the time.

[gambledrum]

That didn't seem to ring right with me either.
Why do some people suggest that? Is there ever any merit to that type of thinking?
They might be thinking something like...
"If players are raising with AK, then I should play 64 to win when they miss the flop and a bunch of low cards hit the board."

[silvershade]

I tend to think that it isnt so much a question of whether you can beat ultra tight tables but more a question of whether its worth the trouble to do so, in the micros i suspect it isnt, you're better of just finding an easier game.

The only time it might be worth it to play in tight games at this level as far as I can see is either if you want experience in them or if you just need the hands in order to clear a bonus.

[ QUOTE ]

Part of being a good player is not playing at ultra-tight tables, so I say that your statement is contradictory, because such a case would not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

God no. Part of being a good player is adapting to conditions and taking best advantage of the mistakes your opponents are making.

Tight weak players are perhaps the easiest players to beat, they make more big mistakes (folding the best hand) than the typical fish do.

If the OP (or anyone else) can't beat a microlimit game, especially an ultra-tight one, the problem is that they are nowhere near as good as they think they are.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Example:
MP1 posts. 3 folds, check, two folds, I raise in the CO with 98o, 4 folds. I net $2.50 = 1.25 BB.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see myself raising with 98o in the CO. I see myself folding. Why would you raise in that situation? Do you routinely raise in the CO (with any cards) just because of your position? Is that theoretically correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
98o is not a good hand. I did not expect to have the best hand. This was a semi-bluff. When players are tight, and do not defend properly, I can often isolate the player who posted, at which point I have position, I have represented a very different hand from what I have, I have only put in 2 SB out of the 5.5 SB pot, and if necessary, I can often win at showdown with a middle pair.

Raising would probably not be right at a table where people realize that it might be a steal raise with a very weak hand, or would call too much.

[RiverDood]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you basically saying that you should almost always open raise in a short-handed game, as opposed to calling, in an effort to fold blinds?
At the Royal Vegas Poker 0.50-1.00 game I'm generally not raising with KQs, KJs, ATs in early to middle position. But, in the B&M looser games I raised with those hands in early to middle position most of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends enormously on the texture of the table. But if it's infested with limpers -- who won't cold-call two bets with J9o, A7o, etc, but who like to flock together and limp en masse to give one another decent odds on their draws -- then I'm a big fan of open-raising from middle position with exactly the kinds of hands you describe. In the ideal situation, everyone folds except one or both blinds, and then I've got the best position and the best hand.

The hands you mentioned play pretty well 3-way or 7-way. In the first case, you just want a pair; in the second case, you want your straight/flush to come in. They don't play as well 4-5 way, because there's more risk of being outdrawn by someone and not as many people to pay you off if you hit the jackpot. So at the B&M game, you're raising for value, expecting everyone to call. Online, you're raising to push out draws and protect your hand.

By the way, you're right that it's hard to target a table like this if you're playing five tables. I'm mostly two-tabling these days. It speeds up hands/hour and helps me cope with card-dead periods much better, but it still lets me read table conditions to some degree. At least on the good days it does. On the bad days, it gives me twice as many chances to spew chips.

[ QUOTE ]
But, what about ultra-tight games, with tricky players?

[/ QUOTE ]

With all the poker available right now, why are you wasting you time in an ultra-tight game with 'ticky players'? Move on to something more profitable.

If you HAVE to play with ultra-tight players, just adjust your bluffing frequency. Bluff more often. If your players are better than you, using gaming theory to dictate when you should bluff. (See Skalnsky's 'Theory of Poker' for more on bluffing and gaming theory).

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Example:
MP1 posts. 3 folds, check, two folds, I raise in the CO with 98o, 4 folds. I net $2.50 = 1.25 BB.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see myself raising with 98o in the CO. I see myself folding. Why would you raise in that situation?

[/ QUOTE ]
98o is not a good hand. I did not expect to have the best hand. This was a semi-bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is an example from NL, where position is even more powerful:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/pzhon/poststeal.jpg
This was a relatively tight table, as you can see from the pot sizes of previous hands. When the player in front of me posted 1.5 BB and checked, I thought it was a good time for a semi-bluff.

Everyone folded, so I won 3 big blinds. (Note that an ordinary blind steal wins only 1.5 big blinds.) If they hadn't all folded, I would have regretted my raise, but not by 5 big blinds unless there was a reraise. I would have made a continuation bet on any flop, which I expect would be profitable, and if someone plays back at me, there is a small chance I flopped a monster or a profitable draw.

This was a tight table, but I finished at $383, net +$203.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Is It Possible To Win A Tight Hold 'em Game, Theoretically?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes.


Next question ...


Adam

[halis123456789]

playing the opposite of your opponents is actually correct AS LONG AS THEY FAIL TO ADJUST to what you are doing. if you're in there raising with any marginal hand when you have position and they just give you the pot PF or for one bet on the flop, then they can't win against you playing like that. in order for a tight player to take advantage of what you are doing, they would have to lower their 3-betting standards, etc. to force you to make a hand.

if the players are ultra tight, and you are ultra loose, you are going to crush the game unless they start adjusting.