small stakes more evolved than SSHE suggests?

[VBM]

For the record, i've read SSHE once, and re-reading it now; it's helped me immensely (serving my 10k hand discipleship in Party $0.5/$1) and continues to serve as my de facto hold'em reference.

However, the premise of the book is how to get the best of opponents who play too many hands and go too far with them.

From what I read in this forum, this hardly seems to be the case for 2+2 players in 2/4 - 6/12 games. I daresay you'd be broke in short order if you walked into a 2/4 game basing your game on this default understanding of your opponents.

I guess what I'm asking is, have the assumptions changed for small-stakes since the time SSHE was published? Does what used to characterize a small-stakes game (loose aggressive, sometimes crazy, play) now only characterize a micro-limits game, and the thinking in small-stakes has advanced to more sophisticated level of play?

Or, maybe 2+2'ers are just an elite crust amongst small stakes player and the assumptions about the majority being LAG's still hold true...

TIA for your thoughts...

[sfer]

I was playing live 10/20 at the Borgata over the weekend. In my first orbit, I raised in MP with QQ and tabled my hand at showdown. The next hand, I raised in EP with QQ again and got called in 4 spots. Everyone saw the turn. I got paid off by second pair. I have no doubts that larger games fit easily into the SSH characterization.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
From what I read in this forum, this hardly seems to be the case for 2+2 players in 2/4 - 6/12 games.


[/ QUOTE ]

True.

[ QUOTE ]
I daresay you'd be broke in short order if you walked into a 2/4 game basing your game on this default understanding of your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there are plenty of people on this board who walk into these games with exactly this default understanding and do well.

[ QUOTE ]

I guess what I'm asking is, have the assumptions changed for small-stakes since the time SSHE was published? Does what used to characterize a small-stakes game (loose aggressive, sometimes crazy, play) now only characterize a micro-limits game, and the thinking in small-stakes has advanced to more sophisticated level of play?

Or, maybe 2+2'ers are just an elite crust amongst small stakes player and the assumptions about the majority being LAG's still hold true...


[/ QUOTE ]

Given that it was published in July of this year, no I wouldn't think that the game has changed since its publication. Things have definitely changed since Doyle's SS, but that was written before many 2+2ers were born, let alone playing poker.

I do think that the knowledge held by many 2+2ers is greater than the knowledge of the average player, and if you log on to most any online poker game, watch peoples play and look at their stats in PT, you'll find plenty of LAG's, confirming that the guidelines in SSHE still hold true.

[Ritter]

I've been thinking about this question myself. My results with about 10k hands at each level are curious (yes, yes sample size police, I hear you). At .50/1 I'm at 4.2BB/100, at 1/2 I'm at 1.8BB/100 and every time I venture to 2/4, my bankroll gets annhialated and I get driven back down to .50/1 to avoid making another deposit. I'm trying to convince myself it's normal variance, but the nagging doubt that I'm simply getting outplayed at the 2/4 game is getting harder to shake. None of my PT stats are THAT different between levels (other than BB/100 [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]).

In general I would say the 2/4 games "feel" much tougher, with many more TAP's.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
In general I would say the 2/4 games "feel" much tougher, with many more TAP's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say you're probably right in that people know more at 2/4, but then again, if you compared 2/4 to 3/6 or 5/10 you'll notice a big difference of skill. I think others who know those levels better than I would agree that 2/4 should still be very profitable without needing as many reads and tricky plays as you might in a higher limit game.

[JDErickson]

[ QUOTE ]
In general I would say the 2/4 games "feel" much tougher, with many more TAP's

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Much more agressive idiots though.

2/4 was a huge adjustment for me after a long time at 1/2. 1/2 was much more tight. 2/4 is a LAG fest most of the time.

In fact it brings up a funny thing this weekend. I keep track of players in Tracker and also try and put manual notes on bad players. My fingers got so tired from typing this stupid play or that stupid play I just started putting idiot or huge idiot.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
My fingers got so tired from typing this stupid play or that stupid play I just started putting idiot or huge idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps its because I spend all day typing anyway, but I've recently begun shorthanding even more: [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img], [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]++, and WTF

[Quercus]

The differences from 1/2 to 2/4 that I've noticed with about 20k hands of both:

* Average Saw Flop slightly lower at 2/4 than 1/2.
* Somewhat increased preflop aggression because of tighter play (more open raises, more blind steals)
* Starting hand requirements tighten up slightly, but compensated somewhat by more steal attempts.
* I generally expect to see two or three decent players per table at 2/4. At 1/2 I expected just one or two.
* A bit more respect for postflop aggression, somewhat fewer people willing to call you all the way to the river hoping to pair their naked aces.

Each level I've gone up has been an adjustment. From 0.5/1.0 to 1/2 it was mostly about tightening starting hand selections, quickly estimating pot odds and discounted outs, and putting some controls on naked aggression.

At 2/4, it was strengthening preflop position play and better utilizing reads of players.

My win rate has dropped consistantly (though my hourly rate has risen) from 0.5/1.00 to 2/4, which is expected given the higher caliber of player at the tables. I had a 4.5 BB/100 win rate at 0.5/1.00 and I honestly don't know if I could have jumped to 2/4 without a decent sized run at 1/2.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
In general I would say the 2/4 games "feel" much tougher, with many more TAP's



No. Much more agressive idiots though.

2/4 was a huge adjustment for me after a long time at 1/2. 1/2 was much more tight. 2/4 is a LAG fest most of the time.

In fact it brings up a funny thing this weekend. I keep track of players in Tracker and also try and put manual notes on bad players. My fingers got so tired from typing this stupid play or that stupid play I just started putting idiot or huge idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I've found. I tend to pride myself on how good my notes are on people, and actively take a lot of them. I don't bother much when people play in a way approximating adequate reasoning or skill; it's the exceptions that count. Exceptions for especially good play are quite rare, but exceptions for bad play are fairly common.

Then when I moved up to 2/4, it got to seem like I barely had time to do anything but write notes. Now I've stopped bothering to write notes as much because almost every table is full of LAG's and crazy players, and coldcalling and playing without regard to position or much of anything else is the norm, not the exception.

When you used the word "idiot" to describe some of the players, it made me grin too. I used to rarely use that word, instead using "dumb" if it really seemed warranted. Maybe adding on "super" as a prefix sometimes. Now to note how startlingly bad or crazy players can get in 2/4, I find myself using "idiot" a lot more, and sometimes "super," too.

I've had one incredible week, but a few mediocre and losing weeks, too. It's definitely an adjustment of some sort, if only to the truly wild swings and opened-up, freewheeling play compared to 1/2.

Interestingly, I often see people I put on my buddy list for their abysmal play at 2/4 winding up the next day playing on 3/6, 5/10, playing every kind of tournament, even at 15/30 and all levels of no-limit. The crazies on my buddy list from 1/2 games tend to stick to the same game or within a level or two.

[J.R.]

"I guess what I'm asking is, have the assumptions changed for small-stakes since the time SSHE was published?"

It appears you think that SSHE was written for small stakes party online games, and it is that assumption that is incorrect. The loose and go to far with their hands assumption is based on small stakes live games in Vegas and California (more so), for example. The SSHE hand selection charts differeniate between different types of games, and you should too.

Its all relative, but in general, players in party 2-4 and 3-6 games play to many hands and go to far with them (although perhaps no to the extent it occurs in their "live game" counterparts.)

"I daresay you'd be broke in short order if you walked into a 2/4 game basing your game on this default understanding of your opponents."

This is my default understanding, and I haven't gone broke yet. Perhpas its a matter of degree (they are loose but not "that loose) and the ability to differnetiate between the meaning of calls and the meaning of bets and raises.

But don't blame the book, read the book more carefully and decide when and to what extent it is applicable to the game you are in. Product missue, when proper use is adequately detailed in the products instructions, is the fault of the user.