"value to learning to beat super-loose games"

[beekeeper]

[ QUOTE ]

I happen to believe that there is value to learning to beat super-loose games. It teaches discipline and playing correctly while getting sucked out on. [ QUOTE ]



In response to AKQJ10's response to a Pyschology post.


I agree. I'm a beginner, too, but it seems that most of the games I play in (home games, small stakes, NL, tournament format) are of this character. I've learned displine, better timing, how to use position, and to trust many of Sklansky's theories despite being sucked out on. More than anything, I've learned the truth in the maxim that it's about winning money vs winning pots.


If you play in these games, would you agree?

[Student]

I'm a beginner too, and the only games I've played to date are freeplay and PokerStars 1/2 cents NL HE games. These are loose games, and everyone knows that. It's been very difficult for me, since what I read seems to direct towards tighter, more rational, games.

So here I sit, attempting to learn poker and there is little information directed towards the game I play. Everyone knows that heads-up play is also very loose, but heads-up play is viewed as an expert activity. After all, only at the tailend of a tournament or SNG will one get to heads-up, and only the best players reach that level.

Of course, I'm trying to rationize to why I can't seem to get started winning. But at least it isn't costing an arm and leg to learn, given the low stakes in games I play! I figure my PS NL HE 1/2 cents game is tough, tougher than some experienced writers will admit. They're falling for the same old flaw in reasoning, that since these are the very lowest levels of poker one can play, and since often beginners start there, then by inference they must be easy games.

What I'm looking for is a method of attacking my games that doesn't sacrifice conservative, tight play along the way. I continue to work with the GSiH method I call SSS (Short Stack Strategy), and I just keep running into new avenues to explore.

Yesterday I got PokerTracker working for the first time, and this morning I actually looked at some of my worse hands in the last session I played in (Saturday - 79 hands). I'd been introduced to BisonBison Hand Converter along the way, and this permitted me to see hands I'd played in useful format. I'd also started parsing hand histories (HH), attempting to find my best and worst hands quickly, among the many hands of a session.

So being a loser at poker is a good way to be a Beginner! This reality forces one to come to grip with many things, some of which is described above. That 1/2 cents NL HE ring games are more difficult than commonly reckoned is a good thing too; graduation from them will prepare one for future difficulties, because my understanding is many new obstacles face one as we go up the levels.

Dave

[beekeeper]

Unfortunately (or fortunately), I don't play on line (believe it or not, I'm still on dial-up). I'm fortunate that I play with the same cast of characters, pretty much, so I know some of their tendencies by now.

I do know that I play at least 50% fewer hands than most of the other players and when I win a pot, it's usually bigger than most.

The two theories that I try to focus on are: (1) that you want to minimize the amount you lose when you lose a hand and maximize the amount you win when you win, and (2)that it's about winning money as opposed to winning pots.

I have been gradually getting better, but as I do, I find that when I lose a pot, it's usually a big pot, and it's usually on the river, which is hard emotionally, especially in tournaments when I've been patiently building my stack.

I don't know how it works online, but I also find the conservative approach (re: playing premium starting hands) when the blinds are small works for me, because one or two (sometimes more) of the very loose players will either knock someone out or knock themselves out before the blinds increase to a level where I feel the impetus to be more active. Thus, though others may have a higher chip count, I've moved closer to the money. Even though a few others may have a big chip count, often those players are the looser players, and I feel that with the right hand, I'm going to take most of those chips off that player (If I can just be patient).

With more experience, I gradually begin to work in other theories that I have picked up from my reading. I've gotten a lot of help--and hope to get more--from the forum, especially about how I should be interpreting and applying the theories I read about.

Good luck, H

[TaoTe]

Super loose games are usually super juicey and are the most profitable game for me to be in when I'm playing well. Last night I got online to play some 1/2 hold'em. I was trying to pick a good table. I watched one table for a few hands and here's what happened. Someone raised from EP and everyone folded. Someone raised and one person called, folded flop. After seeing that, I quickly left. Rock gardens aren't my specialty. Instead I found a nice table where most hands were raised and occasionally capped before the flop. It was a good game even though I had a negative outcome, I know the longer I sit at tables like that the more I will earn.

[PuckNPoker]

I absolutely agree about learning to beat super loose games, A) they are the most fun games to play in because you get to play more hands B) You get to play more hands postflop as well, since you will have odds for gutshots or backdoor draws + overcards C) You get to appreciate the pot equity concept more (pumping draws is a good example, but not the only one) D) Did I mention its fun?