feeling down...but dont want to be out.

[Shandrax]

NL 0.1/0.2 is as pointless as all the other low stakes games. Because it doesn't hurt to limp in, you will usually be up against a hidden set, hidden two pair and a couple of straight draws.

If you raise pre-flop with Q-Q you may pick up 5 cent, but if they call, you may lose your entire stack. It's a cat and mouse game of who traps whom and you only get action if you are beat or they have a monster draw against you.

Actually people are right to play like that, because if the ante is small in comparison to what you can win, you should always go for it. As soon as everyone plays every hand, all your poker "skills" are essentially useless and you need to show down the best hand.

[AKQJ10]

It's good to know how to beat a game like that. (Foxwoods $1-2 isn't all that different.) Moreover, they adopted a new rule: QQ is allowed to flop a set now.

Earlier post, about limit:
[ QUOTE ]
In No Fold'em games you can't protect your hand, you can't raise for the free card,

[/ QUOTE ]

The free card raise actually works suprisingly well in low stakes. Loose players who'll see a flop with junk won't necessarily three-bet the flop or bet into the flop raiser on the turn, which are the two ways to thwart the free card.

[ QUOTE ]
you can't bluff, you can't win with anything less than top pair

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are both generally true, with the occasional exception.

[ QUOTE ]
and last but not least, it is impossible to put your opponents on a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You certainly can read hands, but you need to consider a much broader range. Also there's no point in attempting Level 2 thinking if they're at Level 0!

[ QUOTE ]
Technically your only weapon is to show down the best hand and we all know that's it not easy to make the absolute nuts in Hold'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't Omaha. You only have to show down the best hand at the table, not the nut hand. Certainly in multiway pots it will take a stronger hand to win on average, a point that both Jones and Miller et al make in their books. So speculative hands that can hit big are much more valuable.

When you win, you will win a much bigger pot.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
When you win, you will win a much bigger pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still it adds up for negative expectation, especially in limit poker.

Here is an example: Let's say you limp with 4-4. 80 out of 90 times you miss the flop and probably have to fold unless it comes extremely weird. 10 times you flop the set, but there is usually a straight or flush out which will hit about 33% of the time. So out of 90 hands you win about 6, or let's say 7 if you redraw to a full house. This means you have to make a plus of about 13 small bets each time you win to break even.

The average pot in $0.5/1 limit is about $5-6, so you need a lot of things to work for you to make this profitable. Ok, my examples might be a bit overexaggerated, but even with a $5 margin of error it is not that easy.

This little example shows why you shouldn't limp with small pairs, but that's another story. Suited connectors hit the flop more often, but usually only for a draw. Even if you restrict yourself to nothing but big cards, you are very vulnerable, because you are playing for "just" top pair.

Once again, if you win, you win a lot, but you don't win enough to cover your losses. That's my theory for small stakes games where you play a bunch of complete idiots.

I give you analogy to make it clear. Imagine you are playing rock/paper/scissors. If your opponents randomize their moves, there is no way to beat them. Yes, their own strategy isn't good enough to win either and they will usually end up in the middle of the pack, but still it's good enough to prevent you from getting an advantage regardless how sophisticated you play.

Poker is all about winning the dead money, because the good hands cancel out each other. If nobody is "good" enough to make a laydown, there is no dead money and with that no chance to win other than by a streak of dumb luck.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
The average pot in $0.5/1 limit is about $5-6, so you need a lot of things to work for you to make this profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't have it both ways. If it's a wild game where everyone limps in to see a flop, then the final pots are typically much bigger than 6 BBet. If it's a somewhat tight game where people don't play a lot of junk, then an overpair or TPGK will win much of the time. Small pairs are far from an automatic play in this kind of moderately tight limit game, but there won't always be every possible flush or straight out against you.


[ QUOTE ]
Once again, if you win, you win a lot, but you don't win enough to cover your losses. That's my theory for small stakes games where you play a bunch of complete idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your theory is wrong. Many theoretically-grounded players have beaten small stakes games or other loose games over the years. Ed Miller has written reams on this topic; if you don't believe him, you're unlikely to believe me.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
Your theory is wrong. Many theoretically-grounded players have beaten small stakes games or other loose games over the years. Ed Miller has written reams on this topic; if you don't believe him, you're unlikely to believe me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sure believe Ed, but none of his concepts work in these games. It's that simple. As I said above, if you can't raise to isolate (because everyone calls) nor semibluff (because nobody every lays his hand down) nor raise for the free card (because the guy with the lead always raises on every street anyways) nor bluff on the river (because they always call) nor if you are unable to get a read on what your opponents have (they usually have everything from Ax to J-2s), then even Ed has to rely on a good run of cards.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I sure believe Ed, but none of his concepts work in these games. It's that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting Started in Hold 'em and Small Stakes Hold 'em are intended almost exclusively for this sort of game.

Isolation and semibluffs are tools you'll rarely use. Semibluffs make an appearance in GSIHE only because Ed is saying that getting the pot heads up on the turn might create a semibluffing opportunity, depending on the opponent. But if the pot isn't heads up, or if you're against the Table Sheriff, then don't semibluff. Period.

The free card play almost always works in small stakes limit games. I've used it plenty.

[ QUOTE ]
then even Ed has to rely on a good run of cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. You're not going to win in SSLHE without a hand. Fortunately we all get good hands with the same frequency over the long run, and when you do get a hand, you'll make enough to make the wait worthwhile.

[Kaeser]

Shandrax, you are badly mistaken on this subject. These loose low limit games are probably the most profitable (in terms of BB/hour) games in existence. You're using a completely different set of tools then at the higher limits but that doesn't make them any less beatable. In games like this though you can't expect to take a "normal" 2+2 TAG style in and beat the game optimally.

If people can beat the low limit games live where the rake is significantly higher, then why wouldn't they be able to beat them online?

[Rottersod]

If you are bored playing the micro limit games because you can't use your poker skills to bluff, make continuation bets, play the stop and go, etc then by all means move up a higher level but keep in mind that you will need to manage your bankroll. if you are putting in $200 a month then tell yourself that you will only play that $200 and if you bust then you'll have to wait until the next month to reload. At the end of the month if you are ahead then don't add any money. If you are behind then add enough to bring you back to your original bankroll. Learn to win at that level.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
Shandrax, you are badly mistaken on this subject. These loose low limit games are probably the most profitable (in terms of BB/hour) games in existence. You're using a completely different set of tools then at the higher limits but that doesn't make them any less beatable. In games like this though you can't expect to take a "normal" 2+2 TAG style in and beat the game optimally.

If people can beat the low limit games live where the rake is significantly higher, then why wouldn't they be able to beat them online?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is possible, I have a winning record at $0.5/1 myself. Still people seem to overrate the "juicy" part of these games. For instance, there was an idiot at my table playing 75% of his hands and going to the river with 70% of them raising on every street. I was in three pots with him and he rivered me twice. I could name a lot of situations where the idiot at the table showed me the nuts, because these guys are allowed to get good cards also. In fact that idiot left the table as a significant winner that day while all the $8-16 VIP guys were losers.

Overall it's just not as easy as people think, especially if you are playing tight (=< 20% VIP) and don't play a lot of pots with them. I hardly ever limp with offsuit hands and I never cold call any significant action unless I am on the button (and usually not even then). If that's not the correct way to play in these games, I can't help it. I can't force myself to play like a donkey only because everyone else at my table does.

[ottsville]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't force myself to play like a donkey only because everyone else at my table does.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ability to adapt your play to the current game is key to becoming a solid, well rounded player. Loosening up your starting hand standards in loose games, epecially in late pos, can add significant profit to your game.