Can you learn to beat the low limit game?

[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 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 and maybe link it from the 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, 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.