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.

[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.

[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

[VBM]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was afraid someone might misinterpret my post to mean precisely this.

For the record, I've never actually played a 2/4 game. And, what I've read seems to (so far) apply beautifully in my micro games (presumably vs. other beginners)

My point was simply, if you are playing other players who are applying the same core SSHE principles you apply, you're probably not playing against the LAG's. I definitely agree that you then need to adjust your tactics to your competition.

And, my question, more succinctly put, is; Are people finding that small-stakes games are increasingly filling up with people who play (presumably like we try to) the SSHE'em way, making them tougher?

[J.R.]

"Are people finding that small-stakes games are increasingly filling up with people who play (presumably like we try to) the SSHE'em way, making them tougher?"

Not really (actually, I don't really know but would bet that isn't the case watching others play). 2+2 has grown a lot, and people mad multitable, so there are lots of decent/good players out there. The games aren't as good as they may have been a year ago, but there is still plenty to go around.

Remember that playing tight preflop is the first adjustment people make, but there's more to skillful play than mucking bad hands. What is bad/losing play is relative to the others at the table.