Strategy for Loosening Low Limit Play

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
The generally accepted advice in playing these games is to do the opposite, play tight, and typically, once you do get a hand, you'll get paid off.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of "common wisdom" that is actually wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
So long as I can be confident that nobody behind me will raise, x # will call, and x # have called, then perhaps I can consider playing some truly dreadful hands, taking into consideration the implied odds if I hit on the flop, and dropping the hand like a hot potato if I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what you call "dreadful," but yes you can loosen up significantly in this situation.

[ QUOTE ]
This brings into being a new way of looking at playing hands preflop instead of position...this in fact ignores position.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no remotely correct preflop strategy that ignores position.

After reading thread: lol Bob Turgeon. There's excerpts of that nonsense on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0967...00#reader-link

I haven't read the book itself, but keeping in mind that these are the parts the author wanted us to see when deciding whether to buy it, it's certainly terrible. It's a hilarious combination of unintelligibility and stuff that would actually sound more intelligent if it didn't make sense. He actually advances the theory that you should play small cards because there are more of them in the deck so you are more likely to pair (this is a fallacy in the same vein as saying that 5293 is a better lotto number than 1111 because it doesn't hit 4 of the same digit as often as it hits 4 different digits).

[James.]

if it's suited and can make at least one straight, it is probably playable in a truly loose passive game.

besides that, you want hands that can make big postflop, like straights and flushes. suited aces, suited kings, even hands like 89o can be playable in the right conditions.

don't underestimate the power of position in limit hold em. even in a game that is passive enough that you need not worry about raises preflop, having good relative and absolute position is still important. it makes it possible to take free cards when you want it, checkraise to limit the field or jam the pot, maximize value, and semibluff. hold em is a game of two things. equity and position. both of them are hugely important in determining your preflop and postflop actions.

[Mygtar]

The problem with playing the trash hands up front, especially UTG-MP is you will catch the flop often enough to cost you money on the later rounds. It puts us in very difficult positions throughout the hand. I am sure that some may be able to play them well enough for a small EV, but I think that most of us mortals at this level cannot.

Peace,
Mygtar

[leo doc]

[ QUOTE ]
if it's suited and can make at least one straight, it is probably playable in a truly loose passive game.

besides that, you want hands that can make big postflop, like straights and flushes. suited aces, suited kings, even hands like 89o can be playable in the right conditions.

don't underestimate the power of position in limit hold em. even in a game that is passive enough that you need not worry about raises preflop, having good relative and absolute position is still important. it makes it possible to take free cards when you want it, checkraise to limit the field or jam the pot, maximize value, and semibluff. hold em is a game of two things. equity and position. both of them are hugely important in determining your preflop and postflop actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
As usual, good, solid, concise advice, James. After re-reading OP's post, it almost makes me think that he's suggesting that he play like the other 5,6, or 7 fish in the typical live LHE game (i.e., play just about any two, irrespective of position) AND make money in the process. When OP wants to try his "thinking out-of-the-box experiment", I'd love to be at the table.

[Mike]

I don't know if Bob Turgeon is still alive, he was in his sixties when I came across his book. He told me, as he was getting up in age, and there was no reason not to share and make more profit with what he learned. At that time he had been playing at a profit for many years.

I think the difference is Bob Turgeon's playing style is for action junkies, not for a player who needs controlled variance and is risk adverse.

I can't speak to the Amazon review, but the book will help a smart player who thinks they want to loosen up or understand what they are wanting. Bob mentions that it is time to quit for the day after dropping $400.00 in a three six game (if I remember correctly). It should be required reading for all Low Limit players as it enters an arena of thinking that most players do not enter into but get very emotional about.

Saying all that, his playing style is too wild for me, but I understand how certain players are successful playing what appears to be absolute junk. Fwiw - Gary Carson's book is along the same lines, but Gary is more reasonable in his approach, also more couched.

[Xhad]

I wasn't working from a review, I was working from excerpts lifted straight from the book.

Jon Feeney has some excellent essays in "Inside the Poker Mind" about why a lot of people can be fooled into thinking this style is profitable. Admittedly I've never met Turgeon or seen him play but something tells me that if he were a significant winner, his book wouldn't be self-edited and selling for $10.

[TheCount212]

I think this is right. However, I do feel sometimes that position is far less important in limit at a LP table; limpfests can be beautiful if we're the best post-flop player at a table full of calling stations and/or weak-tighties. If we're being allowed to limp without much preflop raising then I don't mind making small investments to see if I can flop a big hand; some of my best sessions have been at such a table where a hand like 97o has won me monster pots at a 3/6 table with a modest $3 investment up front. Better players catch on and will make you pay by raising frequently PF; when there are 1 or 2 of them at the table then this speculative style becomes less profitable. But until your PF requirements are forced to tighten by these tougher players I like the idea of Negranu-style limping and use it all the time.
Position is important, of course. But only when others at the table make it important by raising PF.

[Bob T.]

[ QUOTE ]
This brings into being a new way of looking at playing hands preflop instead of position...this in fact ignores position. Instead the consideration is "how many have called in front of me, how many will likely call behind me, and is someone likely to raise behind me."



[/ QUOTE ]

You just can't ignore position. Let's say, you limp in position with rag-rag, semiconnected. If you flop a gutshot and someone in the blinds bets out, you probably can't call, because of the possibility of a raise behind you, but in the same case, if you are in LP, you will know when it gets to you if it is for one bet or two, and you will be able to make a good decision. In Fact, you might be able to call knowing that you have an overlay.

[KoH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if it's suited and can make at least one straight, it is probably playable in a truly loose passive game.

besides that, you want hands that can make big postflop, like straights and flushes. suited aces, suited kings, even hands like 89o can be playable in the right conditions.

don't underestimate the power of position in limit hold em. even in a game that is passive enough that you need not worry about raises preflop, having good relative and absolute position is still important. it makes it possible to take free cards when you want it, checkraise to limit the field or jam the pot, maximize value, and semibluff. hold em is a game of two things. equity and position. both of them are hugely important in determining your preflop and postflop actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
As usual, good, solid, concise advice, James. After re-reading OP's post, it almost makes me think that he's suggesting that he play like the other 5,6, or 7 fish in the typical live LHE game (i.e., play just about any two, irrespective of position) AND make money in the process. When OP wants to try his "thinking out-of-the-box experiment", I'd love to be at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't like playing as the other fish do. The other fish take K high regardless of kicker and will play that to the river even if they aren't getting the odds to do so, and even if they must know they're beat, hoping to either draw out against the odds or crossing their fingers that their opponent is bluffing. It's utter chaos....I'm suggesting *organized* chaos. If you don't flop anything, and/ or you aren't getting the odds to continue, in most cases you've sacrificed only 1 small bet...and again, even in the off chance someone raises, you probably won't lose any of your initial callers.

Why do we care about position? (that was a rhetorical question) We care because we want to know if someone will raise and how many people will be in the pot. What if we can be pretty confident of this information (granted, you can never certain). If we can, then what does position matter?

Sure, your opponents may have position over you in later rounds, but again, this comes down to the confidence you have in your post-flop play. As another poster mentioned, if you're shaky in that area, this certainly won't work...and of course, also as mentioned, this style (*if it has any merit at all, which I'm not saying it does*) will certainly create far more fluctuations.

Lastly, I never suggested playing trash utg since even if you have a number of calling stations that you can feel confident WILL call, there is just not enough of a certainty and there is that increased probability of a raise behind you. What I'm saying is that you need to determine, based on your trash hand, how many people need to be in the pot before you. Now take note, playing this way *NATURALLY* puts you in a later position....typically either middle or late.

[Mike]

It is not a problem, you just have to be aware and think about what you are trying to accomplish. There is a lot of psychology in playing small cards.

For example, at times I play 58s to 9Ts and 68 to T8 in almost any position in a passive game with _only_ a few calling stations. At first the better players are amazed I played and won with what they see as crap.

Then they get angry because I am taking 'their' pots, and they start playing all sorts of crap trying to punish me, raising and reraising with J8s up front or worse. Then they over tighten to playing only group one and two hands (HFAP) and are unknowingly sharing most of their outs - but they quit thinking earlier, they only want to punish me at this point. Finally they become docile and controllable, because they are now too willing to fold to me as I could have a big part of almost any flop I bet.

As long as I am cognizant of the changes and compensate correctly, life is good. I am not making any more BB per hour than other good players, but I had a riot of a time getting there and fun is a big part of why I play.

What you are defining as a problem is a function of variance. Variance is clear cut, we all have our comfort zone and players who do not play in our comfort zone, we see as playing incorrectly. There are many great players who have high variance, just as there are many terrible players with low variance. It is like BK, you can have it your way.