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

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.