3/5nl

smolik75 · #1 08-02-2007, 11:05 PM

So my local cardroom has introduced a 3/5nl $200max game (with $1 on the button and $4 rake every hand even if there's no flop so you basically you start the hand with only $5 in play from the $9) and I'm having a tough time adjusting to it, especially from online play. I was a fairly experienced live player before I moved to online play but for the last year apparently I've forgotten how to play live poker. I just cannot get used to playing short and have had no luck finding books on the subject or even experienced players to pick their brain. The game seems pretty passive but it can be pretty aggro as well. Some fish out there, but some nits as well.

The hardest parts about the game seem to be figuring out when to c-bet and other dynamics, since you're only 40bb deep any bet into a healthy field is like committing to the pot. How should I be adjusting my preflop ranges with the small stacks because youre not exactly getting any real implied odds because if other people are deep you're still short. And assuming this game has a lot of variance, how should the bankroll be adjusted? Is 20 buyins 20-$200 buyins totalling 4k enough, or should it be more because 20 buyins at 100bb would be 10k? Help me 2+2 [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

fraserbrown · #2 08-02-2007, 11:13 PM

If there is such an outrageous rake I wouldnt even consider playing here, as well as the $200 max buy-in. This game is going to turn into an allin donk fest.

Renton · #3 08-02-2007, 11:16 PM

lol at the rake

smolik75 · #4 08-03-2007, 01:03 PM

Yeah, I will admit the rake is the most ridiculous thing ever. However, the players are pretty bad so this makes up for it. Plus the idea of having to drive a long ways for any nl action isn't too great so I think if I can find a way to beat this game then there will be an acceptable medium.

BT2 · #5 08-03-2007, 01:06 PM

with a $200 max buyin and big rake, it would be very difficult to make long term profit from this game. even if the players are horrible, their horribleness is de-emphasized by the low buyin.

Berge20 · #6 08-03-2007, 01:56 PM

I guess that depends on how quickly the game gets (and stays) deep.

smolik75 · #7 08-03-2007, 04:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess that depends on how quickly the game gets (and stays) deep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess at some point I should've mentioned that although you have to start short it's not uncommon to have some decent stacks at the table (around 4-600+). The problem isn't finding donks with money on the table, it's finding a way to get it all when you're startig so short.

Damntra · #8 08-03-2007, 05:13 PM

There's no way I play here. *chuckle*

Renton · #9 08-03-2007, 05:41 PM

i don't care how bad the players are, its almost doubtlessly negative ev for you to play in that game.

smolik75 · #10 08-03-2007, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i don't care how bad the players are, its almost doubtlessly negative ev for you to play in that game.

[/ QUOTE ]

heh, it sure seems that way. How about if this was a 500max or uncapped game? Would this still be a pretty bad game to play in?