Can you learn to beat the low limit game?

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
That is really bad advice. When people post about their difficulty winning in soft games in the small stakes forum, they can expect to be told sarcastically to move up to $100-$200 immediately, but in the beginners forum such jokes should be avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I get called with 7 3 and the guy hit something on the river while I was clearly having the best hand up till 4th street. How do you play against people like that? I really want to master .5/1 before I move one though, but I don't know how!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You might try posting a few hands where you were uncertain about your correct action in either micro or small stakes NL (depending on which game you play). It's much more constructive to focus on your actions rather than your financial results, which will sort themselves out in the long run anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Nah I didn't see a point in posting hands as I really just wanted to know if the low (micro?) limit games are for those who just play any hand and hope to win

[/ QUOTE ]

My constructive comment quotient starts dropping once it becomes obvious that a poster is less interested in improving and more interested in whining about getting sucked out on.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

My constructive comment quotient starts dropping once it becomes obvious that a poster is less interested in improving and more interested in whining about getting sucked out on.

[/ QUOTE ]
I sympathize, but other beginners read will read this thread.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
You can play more loosely against loose players than you can against tight players

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am) but I had always thought if the table is loose, play tight. If the table is tight, play loose.

[Basil]

[ QUOTE ]
My constructive comment quotient starts dropping once it becomes obvious that a poster is less interested in improving and more interested in whining about getting sucked out on.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no desire to win money at this point. I never whined. I was trying to explain my situation. I asked because I want to know if it's even possible to to win these games. How else can I get better? If playing .5/1 gets me nowhere because it's more a matter of luck than anything else, why bother playing .5/1? Should I try playing .5/1 for a year and then come to a conclusion? What are these forums for if not to ask questions? Isn't this the beginner section? What are you doing in it if evrything about poker is crystal clear to you?

I'm sorry that I asked a beginners question in a beginners forum

Where exactly did I whine in my question? Where did I whine in the reply I made? I think you see whine where there is none. Want cheeze with that?

I find it sad you feel a need to make fun of me when all I wanted was an answer to a serious question. Instead you have to come here and act as everyone has played poker their entire life. I have news for you, you were also new to poker once and I don't want to make the same mistakes as you did if I can avoid it. But go ahead and keep slamming me. After all im a "noob" and you're not eh?

Jesus some people...

Up untill now this forum has been a great resource.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am) but I had always thought if the table is loose, play tight. If the table is tight, play loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some ways that's true I believe, but it's only part of the story. Some hands go way up in value when you know that 7 people will be in a raised pot preflop: suited connectors and small pairs, although you'd prefer to only play them for one bet, can take down really big pots. Other hands lose value very quickly with each additional opponent: Offsuit big cards (but not monsters) like AJo, KQo, etc. So yes, playing tight is a good idea in games like this, but not so tight that you fold good drawing hands that are getting pot odds to be profitable.

Hey, I like your question so much I think I'll paraphrase it (unless you give me permission to use it verbatim) and add it to the wiki page on game texture and maybe link it from the FAQ

[OrianasDaad]

Your lack of theoretical gambling knoweledge is going to make it tough for you to beat even the fishiest micro-limit games. The proof for this is evidenced in the following statement: [ QUOTE ]
I always get frustrated because people don't play the way they "should".

[/ QUOTE ]

If every body played poker correct, according to theory, then only the house would win in the long run, as all our money is raked away. It is the mistakes that others make that give the tight, aggressive player an inherent edge.

Focus not on results, but on process.

You need books. I think every player should start with "Theory of Poker". Combine this with, get "Getting Started in Hold'em", since TOP is something of a dry read, and it is a bit advanced. Once you've finished these two, proceed to "Small Stakes Hold'em". You won't need any other books for some time to come, and play at .5/1 after you read them will pay for them in short order.

Bookmark this post, so when you become a winning player at micro-limits, you can see from where you came, and why some may have responded to your question in a way you don't understand.

Other posters: Remember from where you came. Nobody here is God's gift to poker, and this is the Beginner's forum.

[Rosencrantz1]

I, for one, think your OP is totally valid.

My advice -- as others have mentioned -- is to start with Ed Miller's GETTING STARTED IN HOLD'EM. I started with the Jones book (WINNING LOW LIMIT HOLD'EM) and while it's an ok first book, GSIH is really where it's at. It's very well written, easy to follow (even for a beginner) and will explain the most important underlying principals to low-limit hold'em.

As someone who plays primarily .25/.50 on-line, I'm totally sympathetic to that feeling of "How could you chase with 73o and beat me AGAIN?" but the other posters on this thread are right: over the long term you will WIN when the people you play against make bad calls.

I've found the best way to deal with those horrible, silly suck-outs is to say to yourself "I'm really glad his winning this hand will re-enforce all of his bad habits."

GL to you.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I like your question so much I think I'll paraphrase it (unless you give me permission to use it verbatim) and add it to the wiki page on game texture and maybe link it from the FAQ

[/ QUOTE ]

By all means, feel free to quote it how you wish.

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no desire to win money at this point. I never whined. I was trying to explain my situation. I asked because I want to know if it's even possible to to win these games. How else can I get better?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You might try posting a few hands where you were uncertain about your correct action in either micro or small stakes NL (depending on which game you play). It's much more constructive to focus on your actions rather than your financial results, which will sort themselves out in the long run anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took the time to give you honest, good advice. You chose to ignore it. That is your perogative, but if you're not going to pay attention when people tell you how to improve, then don't bitch about it when they stop taking you seriously.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I've found the best way to deal with those horrible, silly suck-outs is to say to yourself "I'm really glad his winning this hand will re-enforce all of his bad habits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. That's what really seems to keep poker profitable.

In the OP's defense, he's hardly alone in feeling this frustration. Ed Miller thought "game too loose to beat" fallacy was important enough to address in GSIH. I had someone on the Psych forum the other day swear up and down that low-limit poker is detrimental for learning because you'd only learn bad habits (which is somewhat true, but ONLY if you have no ability to adjust to tighter games). Different issue, admittedly, but a related one.

The point is, there are tons of people convinced they can't beat loose games. If they're willing to listen, I'd rather show them why they're wrong than berate them.