Overthinking Micro Stakes?

[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.

[ QUOTE ]
and end up losing because of some "smart" play that it seems they dont understand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Smart plays are ones that work. If you can't figure out a huge winning strategy against awful opponents and stick to it, moving up isn't going to do you any favors.

[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.

[jbrock]

This thread seems to come up all of the time. You HAVE to learn how to beat the bad players at the $25 game. At the higher stakes ($100-$200 where I play) your main profit comes from the 2-3 bad players at the table (hopefully) who play like the $25 players. They limp and call a raise with A8o. They might turn 2 pair and crack your AK.

You have to learn to read their bets and put the bad players on a range of hands. When they play back at you, what does that mean? What does their weak leading bet into you mean?

Most of the players at the "higher" stakes do play ok ABC poker and that means it is easy to dump marginal holdings against them when they check raise you on the turn. However, until you can beat a table of bad players, you shouldn't move up. Accept the variance and the higher winrate and learn to play poker.

I personally think the hardest thing in poker is learning the hand range to put someone else on and when to turn the aggression OFF. To minimize the losses when you are probably beat even though you should be ahead if they were playing "good" poker. Is this a person who will call potsized bets on the flush draw? When the flush hits on the river, do you fold or call the all in? All of these are read dependent.

At the lower limits you can just play your own cards and do well, but you have to accept the higher variance that goes with it.

[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.

[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.

[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.

ty for the responses. I think my biggest problem was, just like you said, not adjusting to the players. the players I play live (in a set of different home games) have adapted me to play the way I do, and I did not develop the ability to come down.

thanks for not flaming me. I will definitely work on this. the reason I brought it up at all is that I did jump up to 100nl for a while (before I cashed out too much) and did reasonably well... but for right now my b/r dictates 25nl.

Im glad I escaped the "flaming noobie question" pretty much unscathed. I realize my biggest leak right now is thinking in cash earned instead of BB/100.

thanks again

[vexvelour]

I posted something similar to this in the psych forum, and was vehemently told to stick with it and ABC it up. It's extremely frustrating, I know. I hate playing against the SS players and have been straight up avoiding cash games for a while and am playing tourneys. When I do sit at a cash game now its not so ho-hum boring anymore.