Is it possible to be too good for low limits? |
|
Posted Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:59 pm GMT by xGinNJuicex
I consider myself to be a fairly knowledgable player. I am a poor college student and my bankroll is limited, and I often have to cash out portions of my BR for certain reasons.
I find it extremely difficult to get a read on players in low-limit cash games and SNGs because bad players do things in an unpredictable way whether they mean to or not. In my head, I feel like I would have an easier time getting a good read on someone who knows what they're doing. For example, in a higher limit game, I don't put someone on K8os when they raise from under the gun. But in a $5 SNG anything is possible.
My bankroll sometimes suffers as a result. I get incredibly frustrated when people do things that I know to be incorrect, but it's very difficult to defend against. My BR tends to go up and down.
How do I defend against such players? Does anyone else find this to be true? Or does the fact that I don't win as consistently as I think I should mean I'm not as good a player as I think I am? At what level do players tend to really start playing the game correctly?
Also, what do you guys find to be the best way to evaluate how good of a player you are? Like I said, I think I'm a decent player, but when some moron knocks me out of a 5 or 10 dollar SNG I start to doubt myself.
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 Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm GMT by Phil14312
short answer: No, you can't be too good for low limit games.
If you can't beat the low limits, chances are you will be a bigger loser at higher limits. Play tight/predictable if you can't get a read on players, you'd be amazed how much money that style can win. Also, I think you need to realize what exactly the "long-run" is. Its really frickin long.
In other words, if you get knocked out of an SNG early, it doesn't mean you suck. Just post more hands and worry about making the best decisions possible, the results will follow.
Posted Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:48 pm GMT by xGinNJuicex
| Phil14312 wrote: | short answer: No, you can't be too good for low limit games.
If you can't beat the low limits, chances are you will be a bigger loser at higher limits. Play tight/predictable if you can't get a read on players, you'd be amazed how much money that style can win. Also, I think you need to realize what exactly the "long-run" is. Its really frickin long.
In other words, if you get knocked out of an SNG early, it doesn't mean you suck. Just post more hands and worry about making the best decisions possible, the results will follow. |
Well, I've only been playing fairly seriously for a year or so. In the past year, I'm probably up about $800-$1000 total playing mostly $5 and $10 SNGs. I've never had to reload my online account, although I've run it low from time to time. I also had good success in Vegas playing 1/2 NL cash games. I've had some long winning streaks, but I've had losing streaks too, and I've been struggling lately, hence me starting this topic. I also have extreme difficulty cashing with any consistency in MTTs at any level.
Posted Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:17 pm GMT by snoogins47
| Quote: | | Also, I think you need to realize what exactly the "long-run" is. Its really frickin long. |
There's no great way to really evaluate how good you are. By the time you log enough hands to be fairly confident about your winrate, you're pretty much guaranteed to have played different chunks of hands significantly differently, both because you're adapting and (theoretically) improving, and because of tilt/concentration issues and whatnot. And a long term winner is often very far from a 'consistent' winner, especially one who doesn't play all that many hands.
Perhaps more importantly: you most certainly do not want players to be playing correctly. Players on average get tougher the higher you go... but the question you asked is pretty much impossible to answer, mostly because "what the hell does 'correctly' mean?"
Just talk, think, read, play, try not to tilt, and try not to worry much about your winrate.
Posted Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:44 pm GMT by supafrey
lol only being able to beat people that are playing correctly. playing incorrectly would then logically mean winning more. owwww my giant juicy brain.
ps. yes move up to win more. my stakes preferably.
Posted Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:51 pm GMT by Bonzer
Me NAN say play only the TOP TEN hands as listed by PHIL in really low limit games like 2/4 in VEGAS. 4/8 table you can move to level II. But at ALL times you must play TIGHT AGGRESSIVE. You will pick up reads on some players by just watching their play. Not every player plays every hand even in low limits. Many new players who are serious play very well preflop by being TIGHT and SELECTIVE. But after the flop they are too passive. BE AGGRESSIVE and bump it up. RAISE OR FOLD most of the time. Calling is for the lucky and the lame.     
Posted Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:17 pm GMT by xGinNJuicex
| supafrey wrote: | lol only being able to beat people that are playing correctly. playing incorrectly would then logically mean winning more. owwww my giant juicy brain.
ps. yes move up to win more. my stakes preferably. |
what i meant by that quote was that it is difficult to read a player who is playing erratically as many do at low levels cuz they think, "hey, it's only 5 bucks." whereas, if someone plays the game somewhat well, their betting patterns may indicate a particular hand. someone at a low level may play K6 like it's AK so my K10 is good, whereas at a high level I would not be able to put someone on a weak/stupid hand.
Posted Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:47 pm GMT by khaosanroad
I know the pain. Of course you want people playing incorrectly. The problem is when the entire table plays badly and they take turns getting lucky against you. Moving up will not make it easier. You have to be very aggressive preflop.
Posted Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:19 am GMT by raisebot
| xGinNJuicex wrote: | | supafrey wrote: | lol only being able to beat people that are playing correctly. playing incorrectly would then logically mean winning more. owwww my giant juicy brain.
ps. yes move up to win more. my stakes preferably. |
what i meant by that quote was that it is difficult to read a player who is playing erratically as many do at low levels cuz they think, "hey, it's only 5 bucks." whereas, if someone plays the game somewhat well, their betting patterns may indicate a particular hand. someone at a low level may play K6 like it's AK so my K10 is good, whereas at a high level I would not be able to put someone on a weak/stupid hand. |
In higher limits, you see the same trash win. The only difference is the color of the chips.
Posted Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:24 am GMT by tame_deuces
Just don't overthink when you play low limits and you should be fine. I think I'm a decent player but I stick to the low limits because I don't feel like playing poker for alot of money. Fancy play syndrome is probably one of your worst enemies at these limits.
I like poker and I like to tinker with poker ideas/concepts/numbers but if I play low stakes I still pretty much play straightforward poker. I'll def play speculative hands and go beyond the play-by-the-book TAG concepts as those are good but not necessarily the best for low stakes NL poker playing, but it really isn't advanced concepts...just the simple fact that implied odds are often good in lows stakes, so its just 'advanced nutpeddling'. Plus classic TAG is rather boring to play also.
Posted Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:49 am GMT by suitedaces84
Everything depends on how you define "good players". If you define good players as passive and predictable, then you might stand a better chance against good players. But that's a skrewed up definition of good players.
Posted Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:52 am GMT by supafrey
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | Everything depends on how you define "good players". If you define good players as passive and predictable, then you might stand a better chance against good players. But that's a skrewed up definition of good players. |
Yeah apparently good means willing to fold when we don't have it and willing to pay us more when we do. Also playing more predictably down to a tee - even to the point where someone that can't beat micro stakes is still capable of seeing, adapting to, and beating the pattern. Those are some great players.
Move up, obviously.
Posted Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:40 pm GMT by xGinNJuicex
| supafrey wrote: | | suitedaces84 wrote: | | Everything depends on how you define "good players". If you define good players as passive and predictable, then you might stand a better chance against good players. But that's a skrewed up definition of good players. |
Yeah apparently good means willing to fold when we don't have it and willing to pay us more when we do. Also playing more predictably down to a tee - even to the point where someone that can't beat micro stakes is still capable of seeing, adapting to, and beating the pattern. Those are some great players.
Move up, obviously. |
I never meant my definition of good players was "more passive and predictable." I was referring to players who know the game well enough to do fewer completely ridiculous things.
Take another example. I have read columns in which pros at the WSOP admitted to having trouble with amateurs at their tables, because erratic play made it difficult to put them on a hand. Of course, I was never alluding to the fact that we don't want our opponents to make mistakes... of course we do! In the long run we will profit if our opponents make more mistakes than we do. My original point though, is that players who have a very poor understanding of the game are capable of playing very erratically, making it difficult to get a good read. In a sense, the range of hands they could be playing in a particular situation is larger, making it difficult to pin down your read.
If I'm wrong, hey, I'm wrong. I just wanted to see what people thought about it. I meant this as a hypothetical.
Posted Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:26 pm GMT by Ensano
obviously it's harder to know what a player is doing when they don't really know it themselves, but the same way you'd change up your ingame strategy for a calling station or for a rock is the same thing you would do for these people...
trust me... it's much easier to play against a bunch of people playing any 2 cards that it is against a bunch of TAGs...
with a bunch of fish you just have to keep betting away with those good hands... play straightforeward ABC poker and you WILL win at low stakes...
if you feel like you're ready to move up in stakes then my answer is simple... look at your BR... divide it by 20 and play at the stakes where that is the max buyin...(ie. 500$/25$NL... 1000$/50$NL)
if you don't have enough in your bankroll to move up then you're not as good as you're making yourself think...
Posted Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:02 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| xGinNJuicex wrote: | | In a sense, the range of hands they could be playing in a particular situation is larger, making it difficult to pin down your read. |
So don't "read" them. Bet when you have it, check/fold when you don't.
Here's a quick tip that should underline every discussion like this: If you can't beat bad players, given enough opportunity, then you are a bad player.
Knowing the intricacies of the game doesn't make you a good player. Knowing how and when to apply them does.
Posted Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:07 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | If you can't beat bad players, given enough opportunity, then you are a bad player.
Knowing the intricacies of the game doesn't make you a good player. Knowing how and when to apply them does. |
YES! Thank you, Sean; that says it perfectly. So many people think they're hot stuff when they really just have a bad case of FPS.
Part of "reading" people means giving them a range of hands, not a specific "you got it" or "you don't got it" type of read. If players are really just playing erratically, their range is huge, and most of your legitimate hands are probably good.
Never underestimate the power of ABC Poker against truly bad players. The biggest jump in skill level for any Poker game is between those who have no idea what they're doing and those who have even the most basic winning strategy.
Posted Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:32 pm GMT by exit music
It sounds like you are someone who knows how they think poker should be played, but you haven't played enough to actually understand why what you think is wrong.
If you are too good for the low stakes, it means you are pig-headed and don't realise that the strategy you think should work, doesn't work.
In either case... play more. And move up 
Posted Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:01 pm GMT by Kalbelgarion
At lower stakes, if you play straight-forward, ABC poker, you're going to win a lot more showdowns when you have a higher pair or a higher kicker. With a board like:
A 8 4 A 2
In low-stakes play, your opponent will probably call you down with A7 against your AQ. In higher-stakes play, he'll most likely figure out that he's out-kicked and dump it.
Winning at show-down is where the money is won at low stakes. Fancy plays and big bluffs don't work against donkeys and calling stations--having the best hand does.
Posted Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:02 pm GMT by xGinNJuicex
| exit music wrote: | It sounds like you are someone who knows how they think poker should be played, but you haven't played enough to actually understand why what you think is wrong.
If you are too good for the low stakes, it means you are pig-headed and don't realise that the strategy you think should work, doesn't work.
In either case... play more. And move up |
I don't think I am too good for low stakes. It was a hypothetical question that I put up for debate because of some frustration I experience from time to time.
I recoginize the fact that if I was a very good player I wouldnd't be playing at the stakes that I am. However, I have profited in the past year, but have had to cash out portions of my BR to help me financially, otherwise I would be playing slightly higher than I am.
I don't appreciate being called pig-headed or anything else. I know I'm not a very strong player at this point, but I'm not a horrible player either. I brought the topic up in the first place hoping that I would learn something, not be told that bad or that I'm anything else.
To me, the fact that I am up overall, in my first year of playing the game somewhat seriously, is a sign I am headed in the right direction. I just thought it would take me less time to move up, and sometimes it's frustrating.
| Quote: | | Knowing the intricacies of the game doesn't make you a good player. Knowing how and when to apply them does. |
That is a really great point, and is probably the biggest weakness in my game right now. I'm by no means saying I know the intriacies of the game as well as most of you, but I have been trying to apply what I do know in the proper situation more often.
Posted Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:53 pm GMT by snoogins47
Don't mind us... a variation on this question, usually in the form of "I'm way better than these donks but I can't win, I wish I had enough money to play better players, wtf he had 27!" pops up allllllllll the time here, and makes the knee-jerk reaction quite hostile.
One thing I find odd though is that people seem to naturally equate 'bad' with 'unpredictable.' There's plenty of very bad players that play in an extremely predictable manner that permeate the micro levels. It may be harder to pin somebody down to two precise cards if they're going to be cold-calling with 50% of their hands, but many awful players play quite predictably after the flop (though sometimes, in predictably awful ways)
One other thing to remember is that we derive our edge as a player basically two ways: getting the most accurate information possible about our opponent, and then applying it as well as we can.
A lot of the game even against some pretty mediocre players stresses the first category, and it's way more fun and interesting to boot. However, a large disparity in the second category is worth way more money than the second.
As players get better and better and you go higher and higher, in general, even the players who aren't very good in the first category will make a lot less of the massive fundamental mistakes that the micro-donks will. And that's where the real massive profits are at.
Short version: I would have much more of an edge against a total beginner in a normally structured game than I would against Phil Ivey if he was playing face up. Getting information/managing the information you give out is only a part of the bigger picture. It's an important part, but when you're playing against players that routinely make massive blunders, you're generally only going to be losing if you're making a bunch yourself.
|
|
