[Ed Miller]

I had a problem when this was first posted. I think encouraging new players to chase when they may or may not have proper odds to do so is a little irresponsable. Part of playing winning poker is realizing when you are beat and laying down a hand that may be drawing dead or near dead regardless of how big the pot gets.

Frankly, I think encouraging new players to lay down all their marginal hands regardless of pot size is irresponsible. Yet this is exactly what almost every book on hold 'em advises you to do. And I see it manifest in post after post on this board.

Laying down top pair is the exception, not the rule. This is doubly true when the pot has been raised preflop. Yet in post after post, I see, "well, Axs is really a poor hand because you have to lay down if you flop an ace."

Well, if you HAD to lay down if you flopped an ace, then Axs WOULD be a pretty crappy hand. Fortunately, you don't, and Axs is a pretty decent hand... especially hands like A9s and A8s. Someone drilled it into all these newbies heads that they need to fold if they flop an ace. It certainly wasn't me.

I think the main problem is the fundamental concept of "being beat." You cannot be beaten until the river. Before the river, even if you are behind, you are drawing, not beaten. You have a chance to win. It is this chance, plus the chance you are ahead, plus the big overlay that the pot gives you that makes it correct to continue when in doubt.

The big dividing line is whether the pot was raised before the flop or not. It is difficult to play too loosely after the flop when it was raised before the flop. On the other hand, when the pot was unraised before the flop, you need to really start evaluating the quality of the hands you want to continue with, including top pair. This is the spot where you fold your ace-rag hands if it looks like you might be drawing slim. This is the spot where you fold your weak draws because you are worried someone might raise behind you. This is the spot where a board full of potential redraws can turn a call or raise into a fold.

Make no mistake, though. The money in low-limit hold 'em is made by those who know how to push the edges and win more than their share of the big pots. Limit hold 'em is just plain not a game of laydowns. Those who make the expert laydowns (as opposed to the routine ones that many players make), but do not aggressively pursue the big pots, will be only marginal winners at best.

Regardless of what people think or say on this board weak/tight is not a terrible way to play micro limit games. It is true that it may not maximize winnings, but it WILL make you a winning player at this level.

I agree. You can play tight before the flop, and weak-tight poker after the flop and beat small limit games. You will not beat them for that much, but you will beat them.

But why learn to play that way? If you learn to play that way, you will not be prepared to move up. If you play that way in mid-limit games, you will not win. You will never be more than a mediocre player. The time to start learning to play correctly is now, in micro-limits. Why learn a simple strategy that beats only very soft games when you can learn a more complex strategy that can beat any limit hold 'em game? Especially when the more complex strategy will win much more in the soft games as well.

You guys are here to learn to play solid, winning poker. Solid winning poker means playing tight before the flop, tight in small pots, and aggressively in big pots.