Question about improving

[Jailblazers]

Pretty recently, I read one of Gigabet's posts (sorry no link) and he talked about whenever a hand, whether you are in the pot or not, goes to showdown, you should open up the hand history and try to put yourself in your opponent's shoes and see what he was thinking on each street. He said this was the way you get better.

One question though, is it worth it to do this at microstakes? BEcause most people don't take penny limits seriously, am I just wasting my energy doing this?

[diddyeinstein]

I don't see how critically thinking about hands can ever be a negative. At the very least you can just come to the conclusion that you would have never played it the way those in the HH did.

[SellingtheDrama]

Sometimes they are thinking "Fire pretty, raise button fun"...and that's all there is to it.

Overall though, yes exercises such as this one are beneficial. When I make adjustments intrahand or intrasession, it is generally because of how people play hands against me, and me trying to exploit them somehow.

[Javanewt]

What a great idea. I almost always look to see what they had, but I don't analize step by step. I agree with diddy -- it can't hurt. You will be learning about your opponents, which is the point.

[Xanthro]

Yes, you should do this. While often the logic may seem odd to you, there is usually some type of thinking involved.

It may be as simple as "I have middle pair and everyone bluffs me so I can't fold" It may seem illogical that someone calls every street with middle pair, but some people can't fold.

That knowledge is very helpful if you find yourself in a pot with that person.

Wouldn't you play someone who will play middle pair like the nuts differntly than you would play someone would would only play the nuts like the nuts?

Of course you would, so trying to figure out what other players are doing is key to improving your play against them.

[H2Flow]

It also allows you to gather ideas on how to play a certain hand differently. A lot of people only use histories to see how people play certain hands against them but don't use it as a tool to add to their own arsenals. Sometimes you're going to see something that makes you say " whoa I never would have thought about playing a hand that way " and that's always a good thing.

Knowledge is power

[numbnuts007]

Yes, it is worthwhile at every level. I think people underestimate people at low stakes, or maybe overestimate people at higher stakes. Just because the stakes are for much less, people are still rational and pennies still have value. It's easy to write a player off at micro's as not taking the game serious, but you will run into some of the same type of play at higher limits. Maybe not as much, and maybe not quite as crazy, but its close. Don't discount the learning experience available at micros too much, you'll sell yourself short.

[RobTheDuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is worthwhile at every level. I think people underestimate people at low stakes, or maybe overestimate people at higher stakes. Just because the stakes are for much less, people are still rational and pennies still have value. It's easy to write a player off at micro's as not taking the game serious, but you will run into some of the same type of play at higher limits. Maybe not as much, and maybe not quite as crazy, but its close. Don't discount the learning experience available at micros too much, you'll sell yourself short.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

As many beginning players do, I fell into the trap of believing that microstakes are just a bunch of donkies that don't even take the game seriously. I should move up immediately where people will respect my raises, etc., etc., almost go busto, etc.

Microlimit players still have brains. Often their brains provide them with flawed logic, or poor reasoning, but they are usually thinking something. Learn to figure out how they are thinking (this is the part that is much easier when playing against micro players) and use the information to your advantage.

I'll leave you with a quote I can't remember where I heard (I'm sure in a 2+2 book or from the forums):

"If you can't beat the lower limits, what makes you think you'll be able to beat the higher limits?"

[Rek]

I agree with the above in that many micro stakes players are good.

The problem sometimes is that higher stakes players will use these as a training ground. They will often try ideas they have out on these levels or they just feel like playing manic to let off steam. It's a bit unfair on the micro stakes but thats just the way it is I'm afraid.

[ev_slave]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with the above in that many micro stakes players are good.

[/ QUOTE ]

So would I. There are numerous tags who give low implied odds but somehow manage to have built a big pot when they have a hand to match. I heard someone say elsewhere that 10NL at FTP is somewhat of a minefield, although the mines are fairly easy to spot if you know what you're looking for. I agree with that too. Pokertracker helps with that.

What I've been doing lately is if I'm at a table with a good TAG (who, unless I have position, I will be avoiding for the most part) I'll watch THEM during hands I'm out of. Free lessons from someone who's better than me. Almost as good as a vid.