Beating Loose/Passive Games

[ComedyLimp]

Hi,

I note that a frequently recurring topic is people complaining how they cannot beat typical loose/passive low limit games because of continual suckouts, implicit collusion, etc. The usual advice here is that this is just the usual short term fluctuations and, as you are still getting money in when you are favourite, you will make a profit eventually if you keep playing good, tight/aggressive poker.

Anyway, I've been experimenting at Party (not my usual site but I wanted to try it and try PokerTracker) with a small buy-in. So far I have managed about 1100 hands at $0.5/$1 and am about 40BBs down. I know this is not enough hands to make long term judgements but I semeed to be doing bad enough to think hard about how I was playing and try to work out what was different compared to my usual site.

So I re-read HEPFAP's section on loose games. And lo and behold a lot of the advice there seems to be that typical low limit loose/passive games you need to be (at least to some extent and in some cicrumstances) less aggressive and looser. They give examples of calling with hands like AJ, AQ, etc (I think -- I haven't got the book with me) where you would raise in a tougher game with the definite intention of keeping people in the hand because you can outplay them post-flop and becuase you do not want to raise the pot so mcuh make the loose players passive calling correct by accident.

They also give exmamples of looser play where you should, for example, play suited Aces from EP if you think you can get in cheaply as you are probably going to get enoough action to make flush draws very profitable (again I am typeing this from memory). This all made a great deal of sense (especially as looking at my stats so far I am losing most money TPTK hands (and some big pocket pairs) that get outdrawn and cost me a lot becuase I was raising pre-flop on non-suited big card hands).

So my conundrum is that I can understand the advice on this forum and that tight/aggressive play is still the best approach in the long. And I can understnad the loose game advice in HEPFAP. But do the two approaches not seem to be in at least some sort of conflict?

Thanks.

[bernie]

the term 'selectively aggressive' seems to fit. some just throw chips in and keep throwing them trying to run over a game with a bunch of guys calling. betting/raising when they should be checking or calling. sometimes, even when they should be folding. (read dependent). then some complaining that the opponents never fold to bluffs.

there are many skills for a loose passive game that many ignore.

b

[AliasMrJones]

In my opinion, you don't loosen up your starting hand requirements all that much, but you are able to play more hands because the conditions necessary are there. For instance, suited connector stuff that you'd never get enough callers to play in a tight game you can play with the benefit that you'll get paid off big time when they hit. Axs in EP is another example where you know there probably won't be a raise and you'll always have 4 callers so you can play it where in a tight game you wouldn't. Same thing with low pocket pairs in any position. It isn't that your standards are changing very much, it is the game conditions that are changing. Unsuited big cards do go down in value in a multi-way pot so AJo and ATo are not great hands in a loose game. I generally pitch ATo unless folded to me in late position (which won't happen at $.50/1) and call in LP with AJo, maybe MP depending on circumstances. Better players might play these hands more and/or differently.

Regarding raising/calling with hands like AQ, there has been a lot of discussion on this topic. HEPFAP suggests trying to keep the pot small and then drop the hammer on the turn to force calling stations into making mistakes since they will call whether they have pot odds or not. With so many generally in the pot, however, with loose starting hand requirements (or none) I tend to lean toward make 'em pay and make the value raise pre-flop. Note that this is not to get people out of the pot as you'll get cold callers so this is strictly because you think you have the best hand at that point.

Bluffing is almost useless. Your opponents aren't thinking about what you might have so any kind of play based on making your opponent think you have some particular hand is futile. Play good, basic strategy, bet/raise when you get a hand and don't go on tilt when you get sucked out on.

[el_grande]

Being down $40 at Party .5/1 is nothing. I've played about 4,500 hands in that game and have had many downswings like that.

The problem with so many loose passives in the game is that usually one of them makes two-pair or better. This is one example where weak-tight play is not so bad. TPTK is not that great of a hand on the flop if 3 or more people call you. Sometimes it's good to dump if the board looks scary and there are turn raises.

Making money at low-limit over the long term is not something that's lots of fun. It's more of a grind. It will seem like you lose a lot, but the overall trend is upward. It's kind of an empty victory, actually. I get more enjoyment out of the game itself and the challenge of making correct decisions.

PS. This should be in the Microlimit forum.

[MikeyObviously]

I have the opinion that you shouldn't change your game THAT much. Making adjustments to your game to add more to your hourly rate is fine and a good idea, but you don't even have to do that. its a tradeoff of BB/Hr vs. flucuations. Marginal hands can be played for profit, but the profit will be Marginal. Therefore flucuation occurs.

Play REAL tight = make little money/little flucuation
Play Normal = make money/normal flucuations
Play "Loose" (Axs from EP...small pairs when 3-4 to a flop, AJo...stuff you can get away with when the games are up to it) = maximize money/LARGE flucuations.

[LetsRock]

[ QUOTE ]
So far I have managed about 1100 hands at $0.5/$1 .......... So I re-read HEPFAP's section on loose games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be real careful about trying apply much from HEPFAP to this level game. That book is aimed at higher limits (5/10 and up) and can get you into big trouble if you try to apply most of it's stategies to low limits. I'd advise you stick to HEP (or other entry level poker books) for strategy advice when playing at low levels. You just don't need to be that tricky when playing low limits.

I know you're refering only to starter requirements for a specific table type, but even this may be misguided advice for a .5/1 game. Post-flop play will be much different between most 5/10 and .5/1 games and post-flop play is a huge factor, especially when loosening your starting requirements.

I'm not saying you should completely ignore HEPFAP, just don't use it as a map for these games - you will get very lost.

[ComedyLimp]

Thanks for the replies. Much of what has been said makes sense.

To answer a couple of specific points -- I am playing at 0.5/1 but plan on progressing (at least unitl I started to losing) and figure this applies, at least to some extent up, to 2/4 and 3/6.

Also I understand that most of HEPFAP applies more at mid-limit play but I was refering specfically to the section on wild/loose games which seems to be intended for these sorts of games.

Thanks.