Bad to be a nit at low stakes???
 

I recently had a massive downswing at 100plo mainly because I found myself bluffing in position vs the wrong players. I dropped down to 50plo, and it seems like every player has a vpip of atleast 40. It seems like being a nit is optimal since almost all players are unbluffable. I took my vpip down to less than 20 and stopped raising IP as often with weak hands (that is when i would cont bet too often and just get called).

Is this bad??

Re: Bad to be a nit at low stakes???
 

no

Re: Bad to be a nit at low stakes???
 

i fins at these stakes people call any 4 and any draw - forget bluffing unless your opponent is is HU with an 8 table rock and just play straightforward PLO - probably something like 20/7/3 is optimal for these stakes

Re: Bad to be a nit at low stakes???
 

there´s no point in bluffing at stakes up to plo200 as there are lots of people who won´t understand what you´re trying to "tell" them and/or can´t even read the board correctly. i´ve seen people call huge river bets (bluffs) with queen high because they thought they had a full house ... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

being a nit is the best you can do imo. i´ll have to learn that myself though [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

Re: Bad to be a nit at low stakes???
 

I think the opposite is true: you should be playing more hands, and raising more hands in position. But, just because you raise PF doesn't mean you have to continuation bet the flop. If you don't make an effort to build the pot, no one else will.

Re: Bad to be a nit at low stakes???
 

[ QUOTE ]
i fins at these stakes people call any 4 and any draw - forget bluffing unless your opponent is is HU with an 8 table rock and just play straightforward PLO - probably something like 20/7/3 is optimal for these stakes

[/ QUOTE ]

20/7/3 is profitable but not even close to optimal.

Re: Bad to be a nit at low stakes???
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i fins at these stakes people call any 4 and any draw - forget bluffing unless your opponent is is HU with an 8 table rock and just play straightforward PLO - probably something like 20/7/3 is optimal for these stakes

[/ QUOTE ]

20/7/3 is profitable but not even close to optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep you maybe right but i would say for a beginer its a good place to start

Re: Bad to be a nit at low stakes???
 

I've played at 50 PLO for a couple of weeks and I don't really have the same experience. Players have a high VPIP, and there are common misconceptions like that any double suited hand is good enough to call a reraise preflop. I guess opponents will call a pot bet with quite little on the flop, but if you follow it up with a turn bet most of the time people will fold. Players are reluctant to put in a lot of money. Some players won't release a flush draw, but then you just bet again on the river if it doesn't hit and they fold.

I think you will lose out on a lot of money and a large part of the game if you decide that "all these idiots are unbluffable" and stop cbetting and stealing pots. Sure, maybe a lot of players don't think the same way as at higher stakes, but this simply means you have to adjust your game.

Re: Bad to be a nit at low stakes???
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i fins at these stakes people call any 4 and any draw - forget bluffing unless your opponent is is HU with an 8 table rock and just play straightforward PLO - probably something like 20/7/3 is optimal for these stakes

[/ QUOTE ]

20/7/3 is profitable but not even close to optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would you say is closer to optimal?

Re: Bad to be a nit at low stakes???
 

I'm at 43/9/?(what's this one) and am running at 21bb/100 at micro stakes, mostly 25PLO with some 10/50 thrown in.

There are players that you definitely don't want to bluff at these stakes, but by the same token there are others you can really push around. I think it's a mistake to make assumptions based on the stakes.

There is the full cross section of players at these levels, just with lesser BR and lesser skill and experience.