Can you learn to beat the low limit game?

[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.

[webgator]

It is possible. I started out playing the nano-limits eight months ago and after learning the basics of the game moved up to the .50/1.00 level. I am currently earning about 2 bb/100 hands. Not that great to some, but good for me, considering I play only about 8 to 12 hours a week and usually only play max 2 tables.

I suggest Ed Millers Getting Started in Hold Em and Lee Jones Winning Low Limit Holdem. I have read both these several times and they have helped be substantially. I will be reading Ed Miller's Small Stakes Holdem next.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I admit that I was frustrated that I felt OP was unwilling to listen to advice on what's worked for me in learning to beat low-limit games, and instead preferred to dismiss what I said as being "pointless" and contine to fixate on low-limit being unbeatable. In hindsight I regret making any more posts in this thread after the first, but admittedly after taking the time to reply and having my advice thrown back at me I wasn't feeling terribly charitable.

I'll add that if you think that my strategy of "playing any two" is a losing one, then it should be obvious that playing against such a strategy must be profitable. Poker is a zero-sum game: if someone is losing money, someone else is winning it. Hopefully this will help convince OP of whether low-limit games are beatable.

[ 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."

GL to you.

[/ QUOTE ]


Great attitude. Love it.

[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.

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no desire to win money at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

From someone who has been playing cash (at a level 10X below yours--.05/.10), OF COURSE the games are beatable. Do you consider yourself a failure unless you have a winning session?

Why are you fixated on the .50/1 level? If you're looking to improve, step down a level and work on your skills. Read a book. Then move up.

Your post is reminiscent of about 200 on these boards. I think I even posted something like this when I started. Not too knowledgable about the game, bad run, trying to justify it. The fault usually resided with me. Playing too many marginal/submarginal starting hands and going too far with them.

My advice (pretty much taken from SSHE:
1. Limit your starting hands: I don't currently use Poker Tracker or anything like that, but UB gives table stats so I can see how many hands I'm limping/raising. I average about 3-4 hands played per orbit--and that includes sitting in the blinds. Are you doing a lot of calling/cold calling?
2. Improve (and become more agressive) post-flop play. This is where you will make your money. Even I've noticed that I've become more aggressive as of late, and I'm willing to let go of good hands where 5 other people are still in the pot with good draws against me.

Lastly, cards are cards. You WILL eventually have a bad run. Expect it and deal with it. If you're having a bad session and it's affecting your mindset, quit. The internet isn't going anywhere.

It's all one long session. Those numbnuts with 73o will suck out short term, and they'll pay off long term.

[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.