Stakes to play?

I've been playing online regularly for 2 months, trying to learn how to really play Hold'em. I tend to play the lowest two levels, sometimes going as high as $3/6. I'm beginning to think the lowest limit games are too loose for what I am trying to do. What are your opnions on the "best" level to play for someone trying to study and improve his game? I'm not totally new to poker, just new to taking it seriously.

You need to build a strong foundation before venturing into stakes above 3/6. Read and re-read the books designed for new comers to the game. Lou Krieger and Lee Jones have written good books for new players to begin understanding the fundamentals. When you have a decent grasp of these books or similar ones then you should read the books written by David Skalansky and Mason Malmouth. During this time there is no substitute from playing low limit poker and learning from your mistakes which are inevitable. You will learn from these books how to play in looser low limit games. It takes a lot of playing time and patience but you should be able to limit your losses and win more consistently at low limit holdem just by reading the introductory materials.


good luck.

Zog, I had the exact same problem. As a beginner I wanted to play at the lower limit games only to learn and improve. I soon found that few of the strategies that I was reading worked and thought that I would have to quit. I took a small bankroll into the $3/6 games and played as tight as I could so that I would not blow out my bankroll and slowly found the hands that worked. In addition more of the basic theory I was learning worked as well. I'm not saying that to play all your games at $3/6, just that it did help me to win. After all, 6X the big bet from the .50/1 is almost substantial for even a weak player to make a laydown from time to time. I welcome thoughts from other players, I know that this could be wrong.

If you can beat $3-6, play it. Play the highest game you can beat while affording the swings (If you play better than most, you'll still eventually see a downswing of at least $1,500 at $3-6, probably higher).


If you're not sure where you stand, consider 5-handed $1-2, perhaps two tables at a time (both left open and positioned in opposite corners of a good-sized monitor, max res.). Some advantages:


(1) With so few opponents and so many hands per hour, you can quickly figure out what how they play, which will pretty much force you to figure out what to do about it. You'll be thinking about how to exploit them instead of just waiting for a good hand and a good flop.


(2) Virtually everyone playing at this level is either too loose, too passive or too aggressive. Sometimes all three in the same hand.


(3) Much of the game is blind attack and defense, which is critical to "getting" hold 'em.


(4) Bluffing and semibluffing are more often real factors, whereas in loose full table games you tend to wait for solid hands and solid flops. (Obviously this doesn't apply to the occasional game where everyone sees the turn because it's only 5-handed).


(5) Short-term results go up and down a lot faster. This creates more play based on recent results, including tilt, which means players deviate further from optimal play and makes them easier to read and exploit. Things change quickly, though.


I'm not sure what you mean by games being too loose for what you're trying to do, but beware of falling into the trap of "I have to play bigger becuase my opponents down here play too badly for me to beat them." There's something to this: if you know how to exploit the two weakies at the table while holding your own against the other 6 or 7 decent players, then play higher.


OTOH, book-readers lose in lose LL games because they see players constantly winning with junk, and therefore figure they can play hands that are a bit better, but in fact aren't really better because they're not good enough to overcome the schooling effect and the rake. Postflop, they see players calling with one overcard and figure they have an advantage if they resolve to only call with at least two overcards. And so forth. They end up in too many pots with too little.


Loose low limit poker is a cinch, it just requires a fair amount of patience and understanding of what works and what doesn't. You should also realize that much of what you're seeing consists of players trading their money back and forth with only the house profiting from the rake.


For example, take a hand that in a 10-handed middle limit game would be folded to the button. Since the button has A3o, he raises. Since the sb's hand is in the lower 80% and therefore isn't good for 3 bets, he folds. Since the bb only has an offsuit connector, he folds. Next hand.


The same hand in a low limit game begins with the utg player limping with K8o, the next guy calling with 76s, you fold QTo, then a player calls with 64o because he has some vague idea about multiway action and pot odds, the button calls with his ace, and of course the sb calls because the sb never folds in these games. So six players take the flop. By the end, the board is J9428, and you watch K8 take down what would have been your good-sized pot (the ace felt compelled to bet the flop and turn when everyone checked to him) while feeling an irrational twinge of regret.


What you're seeing in these loose games is players soaking up time gambling with each other. When the hands and positions are switched, they all play the same dumb way. None of them can beat the others in the long run because none of them plays better. They're basically taking turns paying taxes to the house. In the meantime, instead of getting on to the next hand, you have to sit and watch the circus. Truly boring, but jumping in there with QTo and it's ilk is not an alternative. Of course, with AQs/JJ in a low limit game you can rake in huge pots that would have come to 3 small bets at some higher limit.


In a real casino, these games might not be beatable for an decent hourly rate because the hands take so long to play. With 70 hands per table on the internet, however, you can actually build a small bankroll playing $2-4. More with two tables.


You might be beyond some of this stuff already, so I apologize if I'm condescending.

Some of us newbies think a lot about what you wrote in your post, and I, for one, could not possibly have articulated it that way. You've helped ease some of my frustration of trying to apply my new book knowledge to these games.


Thanks!

Thanks Chris, you made some clear points. I don't yet have the bankroll you suggest to spend any real time at 3/6, so I'll stay where I am until I do.


One follow up question:

I don't understand what you mean by "(3) Much of the game is blind attack and defense, which is critical to "getting" hold 'em." Will you elaborate?


BTW, your example of a typical minimum-limit game was not only true, but also a hoot.

It's difficult for most beginning players to get a firm grasp on which hands are worth stealing with and which hands are worth defending with, perhaps especially in the small blind, but making significant errors here costs a lot in a short-handed or tight game.


Let's start with the observation that most hands aren't worth as much as the 1.5 or even 1.33 small bets in the blinds. Therefore, when you raise and take the blinds with hands like KQ/99/KTs in most positions against most opponents, you've won more than you should expect, on average, from these profitable hands. This is a major reason that opening the pot in middle or late position before the flop with a marginally profitable hand without raising is usually a mistake, and an extremely common one in low limit. (It's not a mistake with weaker hands that play well multiway (55, A2s, 65s and even Q9s), when the blinds never fold and several others are sure to call.


There are a few low limit rocks that almost never defend without a premium hand, so you should be attacking them on the button or maybe the cutoff seat with virtually any two cards. You can also steal more liberally when they always defend, favoring at the low end hands with "showdown" possibilities like A2o and 55 and suited junk that you can ditch if you miss the flop. If they'll call a raise with random cards, you should make them pay for your positional advantage.


So a key part of your basic strategy should include a specific understanding about which hands you'll open with for a raise in late position, which hands you'll 3-bet a late raiser with in late position, and which hands you'll defend the big and small blind with, how you might vary these hands to remain slightly unpredictable without deviating too far from good play, and how you should vary these hands according to how your opponents play.


There are a lot of good posts on this topic and the section on late position and the blinds in HPFAP is good. Abdul Jalib has some good things to say about blind attack and defense at posev.com, although I wouldn't endorse his blind defending hands in a raked low limit game, they seem a bit loose.

Havent read your whole post (sorry), but do you think 5 handed 1-2 games are beatable given the rake? I doubt it. It's a good playing experience (like blind defence etc), but I just see too much money leaving the table.


Regards

The 5% max rake probably averages closer to 4% per pot where the rake in full table $1-2 probably comes closer to 2-3%. If I'm right, I don't see how this difference can render the 5-player game unbeatable. (I have no doubt that the full table game is extremely beatable). Twice as many hands per hour also means that one's hourly rate can increase substantially despite the additional rake burden. Remember that it's not the amount of money but the percentage of the pot that leaves the table.

"The 5% max rake probably averages closer to 4% per pot..."


I agree that it's probably about 4% per pot. Now in what percentage of the pots are you shorthanded? 30%?

Assuming opponents are looser and let's say play 40% of the hands than this means you pay (30/(30+4*40))*4=0,63% rake per pot on average. Just checked Paradise and saw the average pot is about 12. So you pay 0,076 per hand dealt (about 1/13 SB).


"... where the rake in full table $1-2 probably comes closer to 2-3%"


Again I agree. But now you see about 20% of the flops and opponents about 30%. This means 0,17% ((20/(9*30+20))*2,5) rake per pot on average. Average pot is about 15, so you pay 0,026 per hand dealt (about 1/38,7 SB).


Note that it doesnt matter here how many hands are dealt at both tables, look at the rake per hand you pay. Now is your edge almost 3 times as big?? (this only means what's more profitable btw).


But the real question: Let's assume 120 hands are dealt an hour. Can you beat 2,7 BB an hour? (as opposed to about 0,9BB in full table)


I know this are very rough calculations, but I think they are a good estimation.


Regards