Beyond Sklansky, Miller, and Malmuth |
|
Posted Thu May 04, 2006 3:59 pm GMT by lwestatbus
This post is for all of you limit ring game players out there (as well as anyone else who has an opinion).
After several winning months playing low fixed limit ring games I had a troublesome March where I dug a deep hole and just barely crawled out by the end of the month and April was my first overall losing month ever. Dug an even deeper hole at the beginning of the month and just couldn't crawl out of it. Anyway, I dug out my dog eared, highlighted, and tabbed copy of Sklansky, Miller, and Malmuth's Low Limit Hold'em book and the subtitle screamed at me from the bottom of the cover--"How to Crush Loose Games and Amateur Opponents." I had realized for some time that I was cleaning up with loose games, especially those games with one (or more!!) wackos in them. I had also realized that I was losing a lot of money in tight games. I usually look for games with higher average pots and higher percent seeing the flop (the statistics available from the lobby) but it almost always happens that the one or two players driving those statistics eventually leave and I'm left at a table of sharks who have come to feed on the now departed fish (except for me).
Now, I'm not a complete idiot and pride myself quite a bit on at least recognizing the 'tone' of a table and trying to adapt my play to it. But my adaptions are basically home grown--ideas I've developed on my own.
So I'm now looking for recommendations on ideas for playing in tighter games. If you have ideas you'd like to post here--great. But I'm also hoping for recommendations on the advanced version of a good book on fixed limit Hold'em. I suspect that such a book might not be constrained by low limit. Is a tight low limit game similar to a higher limit game? Again, I have my own ideas but would really like to bounce them off some other experience.
A couple of fer instances on my ideas for tighter games with better players (or tight games with lousy players--sometimes difficult to tell the difference). First, tighten up like crazy. Speculative hands often don't have the pot value to play. Second, go ahead and bluff. I agree with those who say remove the bluff from your tool kit in loose FL games but I've taken it for a few test drives in tight FL games with reasonable results. Third, give more weight to middle pocket pairs and consider raising them in early position. There are fewer players seeing flops, fewer players playing big cards with weak kickers, and more players willing to fold a marginal starting hand against a raise. Etc.
All ideas will be appreciated.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Thu May 04, 2006 5:32 pm GMT by kainARGH
have you ever , do you ever , play live? Honestly If im to play in a game of tough players - tight players - and all the regular loseing players/fish are gone , I prefere live.
I've been playnig live a long time , and only ercently online. I agree with you that the online loose games are incredibly easy and profitable , and like you i HATE when the fish leave and its just all of us tight shark types , loseing to the rake as we all wait for another player to come along. We just end up paying off whomever is getting lucky at the time.
Live however , ill take tough sophisticated players all day long. You can make great reads , laydowns , put situation specific moves on people - in other words live its alot easyer to conquer the type of game you describe as being difacult online.
sorry if this is no help :
But I , like you , would appreciate advice on this matter as well. As it can be painful when all the loose fishies leave and its just a rock garden with the ocasional TAG.
Posted Thu May 04, 2006 5:33 pm GMT by suitedaces84
When the fish are gone you should leave. The average low limit player will lose about ~2BB/100 hands (this is the rake). To win at low limit hold'em you need to be at least 2BB/100 better than your opponents. 2BB/100 better is a lot. If you're playing agaisnt a group of players that you are better than by only a small margin you won't be able to win. When a terrible player (read: someone who loses 20BB/100 or more) leaves your win rate will drop by 2BB/100.
If you have a very good win rate such as 2BB/100 vs. 8 decent players and 1 idiot your win rate vs. 9 nine decent players will be around 0. If you play at a low limit table that doesn't have at least one very bad player or several pretty bad players you have a huge leak in your game.
There are plenty of low limit tables with bad players. Taking a few extra minutes to seek the bad players out is worth it.
Posted Thu May 04, 2006 8:44 pm GMT by lwestatbus
| kainARGH wrote: | | have you ever , do you ever , play live? |
Unfortunately not very often. I live in Florida and the live poker is scattered around quite a bit. And the closest card room to me has this really strange $2/2/2/2 format that I don't like--too much adjusting to do and I haven't figured it out yet. I have played live $2/4 in Vegas and came out ahead. That was the lowest stakes available and there were fish and I did find that I was reading situations correctly most of the time, without knowing why!! I've been reluctant to delve into live home games as such are illegal in Florida (above penny ante stakes). I don't want to make money off soon to be former friends and I've seen too many people in a local poker meetup group who are waaaay too casual about advertising their games. I have a job where a morals bust would be fatal so I just stay away.
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | When the fish are gone you should leave. |
Well this is discouraging. Reminds me of the scene in Rounders where the gang has found themselves in Atlantic City and they don't even want to play each other. They just sit and go through the motions until a fish shows up.
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | If you play at a low limit table that doesn't have at least one very bad player or several pretty bad players you have a huge leak in your game. |
Well, that both explains a lot and makes me feel a little better. I was winning consistently at the lowest stakes offered on my site (0.25/0.50). When I jumped up to 0.50/1.00 the bleeds began. While these stakes are still pretty low, they aren't the lowest around and some filtering has taken place since players chose to advance based on some criteria.
OK: Follow-on question. I really want to elevate my game in both quality and stakes. For now, I want to stay with fixed limit and probably ring games, though I am not averse to moving to limit tournaments. I've planned on making the changes incrementally and letting my bankroll build up to support each successive level of stakes I pursue. (I deposited $150 and am now up about $500 and have never had to redeposit.) So, where does one go from here? What can I expect as stakes increase? Can those games be beat? Do the pros make their livings off the fish at any level and only butt heads with each other in the tournaments?
I've made a major strategic bad assumption if I have been thinking that the key to long term success is better play. (Mind, I'm not saying that suited is advocating against this.) Does there get to be a level of ability where it is just luck that determines success among a group of peers? At live play does the reading and playing the player become the determinant of success? Is this different in limit and no limit? (I guess that this is more than one follow up question.)
Posted Thu May 04, 2006 9:53 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Bigger games have much lower rakes in terms of BB/100. So to win in UB's 300/600 (is it UB that has this game?) game you don't have to play much better than your opponents. Unfortunately your opponents are going to be extremely difficult to play better than.
I'm not sure how to explain the difference between .5/1 and 5/10 other than players at 5/10 are generally much better. There are still really bad players, but they're tougher to find.
It will never get to the point where luck decides who wins in the long term. If all players were equally matched they'd all lose in the long term.
High stakes players make their money the same way low stakes players do. They play against "fish". What a good high stakes player considers a fish is much different than what a good low stakes player considers a fish. If you're the 10th best player in the world and you're playing against the 9 best players in the world you're the fish. If you're a pretty bad player who is playing agaisnt a table of players who are even worse than you, then you're the shark.
your win rate = your skill - your opponents' skill - the rake
Playing well and playing against bad players are both very important.
Posted Fri May 05, 2006 1:55 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
I second everything suited said.
Posted Fri May 05, 2006 10:45 am GMT by kainARGH
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | I second everything suited said. |
What I liked best was here;
| Quote: | | High stakes players make their money the same way low stakes players do. They play against "fish". What a good high stakes player considers a fish is much different than what a good low stakes player considers a fish. |
So the next step naturally would be finding leaks in your opponents play you can capitolize on consistantly to increase winrate amongst stronger then previous fish type players.
Posted Mon May 08, 2006 7:06 am GMT by lwestatbus
I always enjoy Suited's responses and insights. But the question in the original posting remains unanswered: How does one move up beyond the basics? Or, how does one move from being the 384,792nd best low limit hold'em player in the world (me) to being in the top 1,000. Specifically, is there an advanced reference that anyone can refer me to that is as good as SM&M for the advanced game?
Here are some possibilities I have considered for moving my game forward:
1. SM&M have everything you need to know, the trick is to be more refined in your application. Look for the smaller deviations in your opponents' games (as kainARGH suggests) while tightening up the small leaks in your game.
2. Look for opportunities to be profitably imaginative with your game. Let the inner Gus Hansen out every once in a while.
3. Work on your opponent reading skills. Elevate the game beyond the cards and math to the psychology and the players. (How does this change for someone like me with limited opportunities to play live?)
4. Learn to think and adapt. Make decisions from first principles rather than following a cookbook.
5. Somebody on this forum once said (might even have been suited in another thread) that the champions are the players who can consider more factors in their decisions than their opponents. True?
Here're my ultimate objectives for my play as this maybe helpful for respondents.
A: I want to play a lot of poker because I really enjoy it.
B: I want it to be profitable enough that my wife won't complain about how much time I spend doing it. This target is $1,000/month.
Thanks to all who have responded so far. Suited--the ball's in your court.
Posted Mon May 08, 2006 11:21 am GMT by tame_deuces
I'll chime in too, not because I have special insight, but I always like your threads. 
I don't think it is that advanced. I think you need:
1.) A sufficient bankroll
2.) Guts & disregard for the money at the table
3.) Steady emotions
After that it I think becomes a matter of experience and withstanding the swings. There are several ways to make your bankroll grow quicker - chasing bonuses, playing more tables, rakeback deals, investing some of your non-bankroll money into it etc.
I don't think you need to be an insanely good poker player to play medium stakes as a winning player, I think you need a very healthy 'poker mentality' to do though. I think over the long haul your goal of 1000$ a month is more than doable, but I also think having an idea about some specific amount of profit is not good. I think it is better to have an idea of what stakes to play at, what your bankroll should be and how much time you should invest.
When people start to climb above/beyond those levels to the hardest games - with the desire to be a winning player, then maybe it is time to stop playing merely to what other people have written and start being the kind of player who could eventually write the books for others to read.
Posted Wed May 17, 2006 1:21 am GMT by khaosanroad
My fishies seem to play during the day time. Maybe they are college kids, inattentive office people sneeking in a few hands, and Europeans.
Posted Wed May 17, 2006 2:46 am GMT by JohnnyCache
Man, someone mentioned it, but emotional control is intensely important.
Playing, a lot, and playing on a level beyond opening six online windows and ace-mining (draw mining in limit I guess) - not to deride that, it's something I don't have the patience to do right -
You want about 1 nice donk for every 3-5 players, or you'd better be going to the game for a poker lesson and not for money.
Play other games - your game might be out there someplace weird, like a split game or omaha or even 5 card draw or 7 stud...but play them cheap until you figure them out.
Moving beyond hand selection and learning position and aggression are important.
There's a novelty that sort of sloughs off after your first few months, and then you sort of hit a zone where it is like, "Do I like this game for hate it?"
You need to play live, as well. I don't care what people say, internet poker is just ... I don't know what. It's LIKE poker but not as awesome.
Posted Fri May 19, 2006 1:59 am GMT by Phil14312
I like your thought processes Larry, first I would get a copy of Sklansky's Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players. I would say that it helped my online 2/4 game as much as Small-Stakes did for my live 2/4 game.
With that said, I think that as you rise in limits, you need to take into account the pyschological aspect of limit. You need to be able to play each player a different way. Calling station...bet your middle pair on the river for value...LAG cap your ace high on the flop b/c you KNOW you are good. It becomes incorporating lots of different information you have picked up and applying it in specific situations.
Sounds like you have a good baseline and are on the right track towards your goals. :D
|
|
