Overthinking Micro Stakes?

[ScottTheFish]

Agree with everyone else, fancy play is usually not what's needed.

And don't fall into the trap of thinking you'll do better against better players. You won't. Learn to beat up on the bad players first.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
And don't fall into the trap of thinking you'll do better against better players. You won't. Learn to beat up on the bad players first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with that. Playing against a bunch of so-so ABC players can be easier then playing at a table full of unpredictable fish. If the players are a little better, your ability to read players hands increases. And if they think a little (1st and 2nd level thinking) you can now make calculated bluffs.

[jkkkk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And don't fall into the trap of thinking you'll do better against better players. You won't. Learn to beat up on the bad players first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with that. Playing against a bunch of so-so ABC players can be easier then playing at a table full of unpredictable fish. If the players are a little better, your ability to read players hands increases. And if they think a little (1st and 2nd level thinking) you can now make calculated bluffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing against good players is easier than playing against bad players eh?

Poker must be the exception to the rule when it comes to the genre of games.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing against good players is easier than playing against bad players eh?

Poker must be the exception to the rule when it comes to the genre of games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think its so black and white. I don't think you're going to do better playing against people better then you. But your style might do better against people who are thinking but NOT as good as you then you would against people who don't know what they're doing.

I believe there was an article about how playing poker against a bunch of loose people bad players who won't fold can have a negative EV effect... where essentially so many players stay in with very outs each, but as a group, they dominate you.

I'm only saying different skills are used/needed depending on the skills/knowledge and playing styles of your opponents. It is possible that one person plays better against thinking opponents then a bunch of idiots.

[vulturesrow]

Conversely, they probably read you better, actually think about what cards you have, and dont get sucked in as much when they are way behind. The small bit of +EV you pick up by being able to make a few more bluffs probably doesnt outweigh the +EV you lose for general donkishness by your opponents.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing against a bunch of so-so ABC players can be easier then playing at a table full of unpredictable fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but it's still a skill that every player needs to develop. Otherwise when your Hero who doesnt know how to play against the worst opponents gets beat by them repeatedly, he'll end up just whining about how "if luck wasn't involved, he'd win every one." When what he should be doing is winning.

[GrunchCan]

Not to respond to myself, but...

The 'skill' that they need to develop is the ability to adjust thier strategy based on the specific opponents' tendancies. People who complain that they can't beat the micro levels and move up becasue 'they will respect my raises' or some such idea will still not be able to adjust thier strategies for specific opponents. They just keep employing the same lines over and over. Those lines might work on average (or they might not). But overall our rigid Hero is an unadapting, sub-optimal player who didn't master a basic skill when it was cheap to do so: reading and adjusting to the opponent. They will eventually run in to opponents who are much better than they are at adapting, and Hero will never move beyond that level.

The reason why the fancy plays aren't working is becasue they are the wrong strategy to employ against the particular people the OP is trying them against. As long as you are trying to force these lines against people whose tendancies will defeat your lines overall, you are not adapting to the player correctly.

Start working on mastering this skill now. It will take your whole life if you work at it. If you don't, you'll hit a glass ceiling before long and never break through.

[kurto]

I will agree somewhat... a really good player should be able to adjust to the table. There are situations where you're best off nutpeddling. Other times, you should try to run over the table with aggression. And everything in between.

I am only suggesting that many people may not be there yet. Some people might be better suited at playing against a certain type of player.

(For instance, I think a Maniac/LAG does well with a table of timid people if he constantly lays on the pressure and knows the few occasions when to back down. A Maniac at a table full of calling stations will quickly get busted.)

When I play the $25 tables, I just nutpeddle. When I play the $100 tables, I use hand reading skills, make bluffs, more 'testing' reraises, etc. I know I'm worst against a table with multiple maniacs.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
If the players are a little better, your ability to read players hands increases. And if they think a little (1st and 2nd level thinking) you can now make calculated bluffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does someone who can't beat players who barely qualify as 1st level thinkers going to dominate players who routinely exhibit 1st and 2nd level thinking? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

What happens to this player when he encounters the 3rd and 4th level thinkers who lurk in the higher levels?

Bottom line - If you can't pwn NL $25, you will be the fish at NL $200.