i am finding that i am repeatedly getting into arguments with people about different situations. mostly, it has to do with aggressiveness. sometimes, it has to do with tightness. sometimes, it has to do with reads and confidence.

so, i'm going to list some key differences i know i have in my playing style that would be frowned upon by some respected posters here. i warn you, some of this might make you cringe.

but, it's honestly been working for me, and i (perhaps stubbornly) stand by my reasoning for doing all of it. although some things are much closer than others (in terms of best play, EV, etc.), others are clear as night and day to me. some things, i won't put up much of a fight for and just shrug and say "i don't mind your reasoning, and your way might very well be the best way," while others, i will continue fighting for.

over time, i'm finding that i'm developing my own style of play, my own niche. i know there are some who say that there is only one "correct" style of play for any given set of circumstances (table texture, stakes, etc.), but i'm starting to believe that, just as there is no universally accepted theory of poker (no puns about the book or the fundamental theorem, please) and that a few different theories are accepted (see the chapter on the theories of poker in gary carson's "complete book of hold 'em poker"), it's quite possible that there is more than one correct style of play.

finally, i'm not meaning to say that my way is the only right way and that everyone else is wrong. i'm also not saying that i'm going to refuse to change. instead, i simply just disagree with opposing points of view for the moment. it may change. if i'm convinced that i'm not maximizing my profits because of some reason, i'll change my style.

so, here they are, one by one. feel free to discuss any of them.

aseem

1. i don't like getting aggressive with big offsuit hands in loose, multiway pots.

i'll always raise AKo and AQo in any position, but i often limp AJo and KQo after a few limpers or when i'm in early/middle position with a loose table to act behind me. i almost never raise ATo and KJo and worse unless i'm specifically going for a blind steal.

why? i won't dispute that you probably have an equity edge against the weaker hands your looser opponents are playing. my problem is two-fold; first, the extra "burden" of being the preflop raiser often causes us (or me, at least) to make -EV moves after the flop (explained below), and second, since raising preflop lowers our postflop expectation, i believe that the postflop edge we sacrifice is greater than the the preflop edge we take.

when we raise preflop, we make the pot bigger. in a loose game, the pot can often be a good size on the flop (four people in for two bets, for example, and that's assuming the pot isn't five-way or six-way as most of the tables that i seek are). because the pot is bigger, we have to play more aggressively (common sense). often, this includes betting many flops when checked to simply because we want to protect this large pot. in all honesty, i often think betting on those flops is -EV (it's "correct," per se, because the pot is large, but in loose games, missed flops for us often mean we have a negative equity edge that we are pushing by betting). if we don't raise preflop, we can often check. checking is also more correct now because the pot is smaller and we don't need to be as aggressive. the same applies to raising with overcards and a backdoor flush draw, for example, which is often the case when the pot is large and we raised preflop.

in essence, what i'm trying to argue is that betting/raising here on a missed flop in a large pot (where we raised preflop) has a lower EV than check/folding on a missed flop in a small pot. i don't know if that makes sense... in other words, we are often forced to be more aggressive than normal when we raise preflop (e.g. continuation bets), and this aggressiveness might be -EV.

it is also common knowledge that raising preflop lowers your postflop expectation. with a hand like AKo, i agree that your equity edge preflop is too great to pass up, and the edge you gain by raising preflop into a field of four opponent outweighs the edge you give up postflop. however, i really don't believe this is the case with ATo/KJo, and sometimes with AJo/KQo. in a pot that i know will be multiway, i prefer limping and retaining my postflop edge. where does that edge come from? it comes from opponents going too far with their hands postflop in what is now a small pot instead of a big one (when we flop a good hand), and i think that edge is often bigger than the edge we gain by raising preflop.

all in all, this is something i don't make a big case for, but it's definitely a part of my style. top pair with ATo is just messy oftentimes, for example. in general, i really prefer limping with big offsuit hands in a multiway pot in a loose game rather than raising.

aseem

I agree with you, to some extent.

You hold A10s on CO/button. Five limpers and a fold in front of you in a game that has had basically everyone staying for the flop. You are saying you would just call in this spot, right? I am just clarifying the situation you were bringing up.

2. i really don't think that most situations in small stakes poker are raise/fold. i think that a very large number of times, calling is actually the best play.

the most common example of this is when it folds to you in a middle/late position preflop, and you have a borderline/marginal hand. oftentimes, the correct play here is to raise or fold, since raising gives you a shot at the blinds, gives you more information about the hands behind you and gives you control of the hand, while calling prevents all of this.

however, to use this same example, calling is oftentimes the best play when it folds to you in MP3, for example, and you have a hand that is very profitable against weak players that does very well in multiway pots--small pocket pairs and medium/high suited connectors, for example. raising with 33 is silly, but folding it is passing up a very profitable opportunity. limping is totally good in a loose game since you can still expect at least a three-handed pot which will usually be four-handed and sometimes even five-handed.

another situation is with a strong hand on the turn where you've had the lead and you suddenly get raised. to go into a raise/fold mode here is also often silly and counterproductive. a common situation where this arises is one where you have an overpair on a semi-ragged board and an average small-stakes player raises you on the turn. often, the pot is too big to fold here (we are often drawing live against two pair, and we are often the best hand against top pair). calling down is clearly the best play in these sitautions.

yet another situation is the common way-ahead/way-behind scenarios where we flop a strong hand on a very ragged board against a preflop aggressor. another situation is where we have a strong hand on the river against a passive player who has just woken up; we often lose two bets when when we're behind but gain only one bet when we're ahead if we raise his river bet, for example.

finally, cold-calling preflop is a good example of why "raise/fold" just doesn't apply all that much in loose small-stakes games. in middle and high limits (i.e. tight games), if someone raises pre-flop, it's almost always incorrect to cold-call. at these stakes, however, cold-calling is often correct with medium/small pocket pairs, big suited broadway cards and suited connectors (sometimes). to three-bet JTs in MP3 after MP2 raises is just silly, for example, when we can easily expect a multiway pot by cold-calling.

all in all, i feel that raw aggression just isn't the best style in loose games where calling increases your expectation. the common "raise/fold" way of thinking just doesn't cut it at these small stakes. while calling is passive and is often frowned upon, it is clearly the best move in multiple situations.

aseem

if that was a typo and you mean A-10 _offsuit_, then yes. if it's suited, then i'm raising.

aseem

more to come later, i'm tired right now.

aseem

I'm assuming we are talking about 10 handed tables...

I'm think I'm gonna have to agree with you on the A-To. I've put a lot of thought into how to play this hand and I've come to the same conclusion. I don't raise with this hand unless I have a good reason to... I'm opening the pot in LP, a complete idiot has limped in front of me and I'd like to try and isolate him, etc. Also, If you have read HEPFAP, I think Sklansky would agree that A-To sucks. He says he put it into group 6 but thought about putting it in group 7 because it's so difficult to play after the flop.

The main problem I run into is that when I raise preflop and then flop an Ace, 1 of 2 things happens about 90% of the time. Either, (1) I'm up against A-J, A-Q or A-K and lose a bunch of money or (2) I bet and everyone folds. So, I either lose 4-5 BB or win 2-3 BB. Not a good situation.

I find that with just limping, I get a lot of weaker players limping with hands like A-9 to A-2, then losing a lot of money. Also, if someone raises preflop then puts up a fight later I have an easier time letting it go.

I'll have to do some more thinking about A-Jo, K-Qo and K-Jo. But, my initial thoughts are A-Jo and K-Qo are group 4 hands and I'll probably keep opening the pot with a raise. K-Jo is a group 5 hand and thus I will normally open for a raise in MP or LP and fold in EP. I may have to study that one a bit more.

amen. my sentiments exactly.

Bah. I thought you might have been talking about NL games, in which case I had something to add about #2.

You strategy forum people and your obsession with limit hold'em. (although you are one of the few of us who post questions about all types of games)

i'm still interested, go ahead.

aseem

As I play more and more I am finding out that in the beginning I thought there was just one accepted strategy, tight aggressive. But now I see that they are so many different ways to approach the game and ways to win.

I have more to say about this too, I agree completely, but off to buy my g/f a laptop and me some more RAM for my computer. Time for a gig of ram :-)

I'm with you all the way on both subjects!

Although I have been playing a little extra tight lately and have been folding some hands to raises more than I used to. (KJo, QJo, baby pairs depending on the table, and any A10.) (K10 and Q10 I fold most of the time now unless I can try to steal with it.)

But I definitely agree with what you're saying. Sounds a bit like my style as well... I see wrto and kdawg make posts talking about raising in certain situations, and if I did some of those on a regular basis, I just can't imagine coming out ahead in the lower games. Maybe 3/6 and 5/10 is a different situation, but not .50/1 and 1/2. Once in awhile I will miss a bet or two, but plenty of times I am behind to some illogical 2 pair or crazy straight and I save a few bets. It seems to even out.

I just rambled a bit, but hopefully I wasn't too off base.

I think this might be one place where i disagree with you. I just cant see me calling with anything if its folded to me in mp3. For your example i dont think your passing up much by folding 33 in a loose game and raising is probably right if its tight. Im curious as to what you do with other hands in this situation- 10Js, A8o, K10o.

I think AJo and KQo have too much equity not to raise preflop. You rightly state that raising preflop trades off a possible postflop value for a likely preflop value. You also say you want people to go farther with their bad hands, so you don't raise preflop. But won't this same people go too far with their hands if you do raise preflop.

I guess the question to answer is what preflop action will cause your opponents to make the most costly mistakes. It could be the case that raising preflop gets them to make one costly mistake (cold calling with a bad hand) but then makes the pot so big that being a calling station is almost correct play. I think even in big pots, your opponents will call with draws they aren't getting odds for.

You also talk about how creating a big pot affect your postflop play. This is an issue I have wondered about but haven't fully worked out. I think correct poker strategy is forward looking and time consistent. But sometimes people seem to be raising or calling preflop for one reason and then playing postflop in a way that clashes with this reasoning. For instance, people call with a medium pair preflop hoping to hit a set. Then for some reason they be when they miss. Another example that is not as clear is people say you should raise with some hands to "give yourself odds to draw." I don't think this can be right.

You are wondering if raising preflop has bad consequences later on, and I think this is the correct way to evaluate the play, but I'm not sure what the answer is.

in a tougher game, you should probably fold 33 from MP3 if it's folded to you, since you can't expect multiway action and you're concerned about being isolated out of position with a hand that has no visibility postflop (since you clearly won't have the implied odds to play it for set value).

open-raising 33 from MP3 in a tight game isn't right, unless you're specifically open-raising from MP3 with any two cards to steal the blinds. any hand that gives you action is either way ahead or has much better visibility and playability postflop. you also have four hands to act behind you, any of which could be way stronger than 33. imagine getting three-bet out of position, that would suck.

while this is a raise/fold situation in tougher games with most hands, 33 is a clear fold. while you can raise 33 to steal the blinds, i'd rather raise A2o to steal the blinds than 33. if you're always raising here with any two cards to steal the blinds, like i said, your hand doesn't matter, but if your hand matters, 33 is a fold and not a raise.

however, in a loose game, you really don't have to worry about isolation, and you really _can_ expect multiway action if you just limp. trying to steal the blinds is also pretty silly in a loose game. most importantly, though, pocket pairs are golden in small stakes games because you have great implied odds in a multiway pot to hit a set and drag a good amount of money.

i think folding here is passing up on too profitable an opportunity. since raising isn't right, limping in is pretty good.

this is actually a direct example from ed miller's "microlimit collection" from 2+2. you should check it out if you haven't already. note that play at small stakes, like this example, often runs opposite and counter to play at higher stakes like HPFAP recommends. this is just one example of adjustments you have to make as you go from higher stakes to smaller ones.

let me know if you still disagree.

aseem

This is basically the thesis of point number 1, no? And it's entirely incomplete. If you made this argument in front of a judge, he'd send you in front of the bar and you wouldn't be practicing law in MA anytime soon.

I'll give you a chance to revise this argument before any serious lambasting occurs. I appreciate what you're doing, but I WILL play forum sheriff on some of these. And this is one I'm going to get nasty about. So fix this, or admit that you don't see the problem, then I'll respond (in 9 hours, probably)

Ice

great post, tim, as usual.


the pot will be smaller _postflop_ when we don't raise preflop, so i believe that this mistake will be costlier for our opponents when they go too far with their bad hands in a smaller pot.


exactly!

i've been thinking about this for a long time, too. i think it's actually most applicable in no limit games, but still very applicable in limit games.

this is the reason why i think poker is very much like chess. you have to constantly be thinking about future betting. this is also the reason why poker is such an insanely complex and intricate science.


that's part of what i'm arguing.

i'm not sure if i'm correct either, but i do agree that it is the correct way to think about it.


aseem

thanks, buddy. :-)

this is the main section i was very hazy about. i didn't know exactly what i was trying to say and how to say it.

i think my mistake has something to do with the concepts of EV versus expectation. check/folding always has 0 EV, and betting on a missed flop in a large pot can't really be -EV if it is the "correct" play oftentimes.

maybe i meant that playing your hand regularly on missed flops after not raising preflop (and having a smaller pot consequently) has higher expectation than playing it overaggressively after raising preflop (and having a bigger pot consequently).

so i guess that i admit that i don't entirely see the problem.

go ahead, help me out.

aseem

I disagree - I'd prefer 33 to A2. Either way, your primary goal with the raise is to steal the blinds. But of course you select which hands to steal with based on how they'll do if the steal fails. A2 has somewhat better "flopability"; it will flop top pair or better around 18% of the time (and a pair of deuces another 9.7%) while 33 will flop a set only 8.8% of the time. But when you flop an A, you're only going to get action if you're beat, whereas if you flop a 3, and the other guy catches anything, you'll probably end up dragging a good-sized pot. Plus, when nobody catches, if he has an A, obviously I'd rather have 33 than A2.

exactly.

33 has no visibility postflop (you're missing your set the vast majority of times), which makes it very difficult to play when your steal fails.

more importantly, any two overcards is close to an even 50/50 against you pot-equity-wise. since you will be forced to play your 33 even when you don't hit a set, the reverse implied odds are actually bigger here than (IMHO) they are with an ace.

why?

because if both you and your opponent are going to showdown, he'll often have your 33 beat. further, since he can bet or check/raise when he hits and call or check/fold when he doesn't, you lose money the times he hits and probably make less the times he doesn't. since he is an even 50/50 to beat your hand by showdown, these are reverse implied odds.


while this sounds nice theoretically, it's just not true.

a lot of defenders are inherently stubborn and will often give you action when an ace flops because they will either be trying to represent it themselves or they won't believe you and will call you down.


the pot won't be big enough to justify playing it for set value since you put in two SB's pre-flop heads-up.


well, a pair is better than ace-high, but both hands are about the same when it comes to "if nobody catches".

what matters more, though, is that when you're ahead pre-flop, you're significantly more ahead with A2 than you are with 33. further, when your opponent hits on the flop, you're way behind with 33 but not always way behind with A2 (especially if you hit a pair of dueces on the flop and are behind to a higher pair).

as a parallel, compare it to this situation: which do you prefer on a flop of K72... 88 or A7? they're about the same showdown-wise (as are 33 and A2), but A7 has more ways of improving when it's behind. similarly, A2 has more ways of improving, generally, when it's behind, than 33 does.


aseem


edit: anyway, that's not the point of this thread. we'll save this discussion for another thread at another time. 8)

Do you have a link to this. I couldnt find it in a search at 2+2.

go to the microlimit forum, and it's a sticky.

i also uploaded it to my web space if that's easier:

http://web.mit.edu/akishore/Public/Microli...tCollection.doc

aseem

I was reading through the archive, and found something from Smash on this topic. This is just an excerpt, but you can read the whole thread here:

Smash 3:16

Okay, there were a few problems I saw with your logic, but this was the one that REALLY stuck in my craw:

"in essence, what i'm trying to argue is that betting/raising here on a missed flop in a large pot (where we raised preflop) has a lower EV than check/folding on a missed flop in a small pot."

Yes. Betting when you won't win the pot often enough to justify it is generally worse than checking in that same situation... but this in and of itself MEANS NOTHING AS IT RELATES TO YOUR ARGUMENT, because you ignore the extra money we win by raising preflop when we're ahead postflop.

It's that simple, and you ignore it in your thesis paragraph, which confuses me. The argument you make has no real logical structure because of this.

1) I believe you're assuming you "waste" more bets by auto-betting when you miss the flop after raising preflop in late position than the bets you pick up by raising before the flop. You should spell this out a little more carefully.

2) Slow down when you miss the flop in position. If you have AJ and the flop is 2 9 T or Q 73 or K 9 2.... just check behind when it's checked to you in a 5 way pot. I rarely bet in these situations in loose games because someone's going to look you up, and you are just wasting bets on your 6 outer. Even if I'm pretty sure I'm ahead with a good Ace-high, I have no problem checking behind and betting/raising the turn if I spike one of my "outs."


I think I realize what you're trying to say. By raising preflop we create a situation where we "have" (or "it's correct") to fire at the flop, even when we whiff. But this just isn't true. If the pot is limped all the way to you on the button, you raise, everybody calls, and the flop is T83, we're not ahead very often. In fact, it's VERY likely that somebody flopped top pair or a strong draw. Betting here is almost always WRONG! Calling/Peeling is right when we have reason to believe we've got 6 clean outs, but that's different

So maybe- just maybe- you shouldn't be betting so many flops when you miss?

"maybe i meant that playing your hand regularly on missed flops after not raising preflop (and having a smaller pot consequently) has higher expectation than playing it overaggressively after raising preflop (and having a bigger pot consequently)."

Don't play overaggressively. And you're not asking the right question. "Do I lose more by firing at big pots than I do by not raising preflop?" The answer, if you're playing correctly, is almost always no.

Ice

PS- Sorry Aseem, I really wanted to give you a good answer on this, but I'm pretty hammered at the moment. I'll come back tomorrow and engage you intelligently and soberly in a strong poker-discussion. I have intense feelings about this. Cheers

tim, thanks for the link. i spent a good chunk of time and read/skimmed most of it.

i agree with what smash is saying in general.

for the part you quoted, however, i think it's a little incomplete and not completely applicable to the discussion.

for the times you win the hand, winning does net you more money since you raised preflop. for the times you lose, you lose just one extra bet, and this is usually less than the money you gained by raising.

but, i think that the number of times you win/lose changes dynamically, too. certain hands stay in that wouldn't, and the converse, on each street, etc.

but i think that way of looking at it is too generalized and incorrect. we have to look at it in terms of expectation.

we have a certain EV when we raise preflop. we also have a certain EV when we don't. we also have different postflop EVs. how those numbers work out is the ultimate instrument to helping us make the best move.

what i'm just not sure about is whether the edge we sacrifice postflop is bigger than the edge we gain by raising.

thanks for the link, though.

aseem

let's add one thing to be clear

point #1 is specifically about raising _offsuit_ hands, not just raising preflop in general.

aseem

ice, you are correct in estimating most of what i'm trying to say.

still, i'm not arguing that autobetting is what loses us money (there are plenty of flops where i don't autobet after raising preflop). if that was the case, raising preflop wouldn't be the issue; autobetting would.

i think more of what i'm getting at is this:

raising preflop changes the postflop dynamics. it sometimes changes the way we play, and it sometimes changes the way our opponents play. it also changes the dynamic EV of every move you make postflop (so, your postflop expectation changes).

generally, raising preflop lowers your postflop expectations because your opponents now make less mistakes postflop (since the pot is bigger). well, whether they make less or more isn't the issue--the magnitude of their mistakes becomes smaller.

so, i'm just wondering if raising preflop and sacrificing our postflop edge with _offsuit hands_ is worth it.

how does it relate specifically to offsuit hands?

well, to use the example from SSHE, suited hands usually have so much value postflop that raising preflop often doesn't lower their expectation by much (since the pot is bigger, they also have better odds to draw to overcards and backdoor flushes, etc.).

with offsuit cards, you're more likely to be way behind when you're behind, and you're less likely to be way ahead when you're ahead. so, i believe your postflop expectation decreases significantly more when you raise preflop with offsuit hands than it does when you raise preflop with suited hands.

taking a quote from SSHE, talking about raising A J from the big blind:

"Since you have a pot equity edge, raising now hsa a positive expectation. By checking you are passing up a profitable opportunity. Keeping the pot small helps you increase your postflop expectation, but at the cost of a smaller preflop expectation.

For some hands, making this tradeoff makes sense. For instance, if you held A 3 , K J , or maybe even ace-jack offsuit, instead of A J , checking might be better. These weaker hands usually have a modest preflop edge against five loose opponents, so a raise shows some profit. Your edge is relatively small, however, so when you check, you forefeit only a small amount. Your improved postflop expectation will usually compensate for this lost money..."

aseem

That was really long, but I'll try and read through it when I'm not half asleep. All I can say is this, you need to find your own playing style which works for you whether it's being tight, aggressive, mixing it up or whatever. Find what works for you, make tweaks every now and then, always strive to improve. What works for one player doesn't neccessarily work for another. There's just so many "it depends" situations in poker that lots of things are not certain. With that said, in a limit game, there is usually a standard way to play most hands, so usually simple is also effective.

can we discuss this a little bit?

this is the main crux of my argument for point #1 (in bold).



aseem

Its interesting that your arguement is for loose games--Implying that if you had the ability to thin the field a bit, you might raise with these hands like AJo, KQo.

That would mean as a function of tightness, there would be some inflection point point where raising preflop gives you most preflop + postflop expectation. As a table increases in looseness from this point your expectation of postflop goes down thus reducing your profits, and as the table increases tightness from this point your preflop expectation of raising goes down because of the increasingly better hands calling the raise.

It would be interesting to conjecture, perhaps in terms of avg % seeing flop, an estimation for what that point is.....

(Or maybe that would only be intersting to me, lol)


But just to take a side in the discussion, I personally have seen better results raising AJo, KQ0 in all positions in the games I play.

harvey,

the thing is, we're not raising AJo and KQo to "thin the field" as you think. so no, that doesn't mean that i'm more inclined to raise them in a tight game since it'll thin the field--whether i actually do raise them more often in a tight game or not is based on different reasoning that i'll get to.

loose games feature players that play too many hands and go too far with them. the bulk of their mistakes come postflop (more betting rounds, the bet doubles on two of the three, hand values can usually run further apart, etc.), and that's where you make the bulk of your money. by raising preflop, you lower your postflop expectation because the magnitude of each of your opponents' postflop mistake goes down (since the pot is bigger).

so, this has nothing to do with whether the field thins or not.

as far as tight games go, i generally tighten up on my value raises also, since the action you get when you raise is generally from stronger hands. for example, A-10 suited is an easy raise into a field of three limpers, but it's not so hot after just one EP limper in a tight game with five players to act behind you.

at the same time, steal raises go up since you have a better shot at the dead money in the pot or at the pot on the flop. that's why blind stealing becomes more profitable, for example.

so in general, this argument has nothing to do with thinning the field. rather, it simply has to do with the edge you gain through preflop raising and the postflop edge it sacrifices.

aseem

Doesnt all this really depend on the type of players at the table.

Sometimes I'm at tables where people basically ignore any pre-flop raise and it usually will cause them to call down because of the size of the pot (eventhough they have no shot at winning). I almost always raise at these tables.

Other times I've found tables where my raise will make people fold that I want in the hand. These are the types of players that will play T5 offsuit for one bet but not two, and they will call/bet to the end when their T hits. I feel like I should let these players in and extract more money from them post-flop.

Both types of tables can be called loose, but their comosition seems to be very different (at least to me).

Well thinning the field is directly related to pot size. I felt like you were saying with your post: If there were some magic where I could exploit my preflop edge, yet not severely diminish my post-flop edge, I might raise with AJo.

For instance, lets say there is on average 60 % of the players seeing the flop with a preflop raise in our game. We have AJo in early position and we are deciding whether to raise it up. We guess based on the average that 5 other players will likely call if we raise. That'll give approx. 12:1 odds on the flop thus making the pot large enough to severely diminish the magnitude of errors.

Now lets say, that 3 people on average will see the flop if we raise. That'll leave approx 6:1 for a single bet on the flop. Now the pot size is at a more reasonable level, where gutshots and overcards are making big mistakes. But with only two other people seeing the flop with you when you raise, AJo may be so limited in preflop exectation that the raise is now unprofitable do to that aspect of the expectation turning negative.

Now lets say 37% of the players are seeing a flop on average with a preflop raise. That'll give an average of 3.7 players seeing the flop for a total average pot size of approx. 7.4. This still leaves callers making errors with their weak draws, and your preflop edge is still significant.

These are just examples so the numbers probably aren't correct, but that was the idea I was going for.

There should be some point in the middle where expectation is at its highest by raising with AJo in early position.

I haven't given this much thought, so I might be way off base, but it seems like a reasonable idea right now while I'm typing it....

Although i certainly feel that much of the play has to be adjusted to the type of players at the table, i strongly agree about the calling strategy though. I think calling can often be the best play at lower limit poker (probably 5-10 and down or so, but it still depends on the quality of players). It makes you not only harder to bluff, but also less profitable to trap.

Ultimately if your playing tight players. Loosen up.
If your playing loose players tighten up.
I have taken this to mean that if your playing ridiculously loose players (like you see in low limit, online or live). Than play ridiculously tight.
I cannot decide wether or not this is correct, but it's the strategy that I employ.
I do, and dont mean just starting hands. It seems far better to take a more passive approach to hands that are on the come. Because no bet is gonna get anyone to fold (limit), and if you hit your hand your gonna get paid off.
Obviously this all depends.

princeof56k:

i'm talking about loose games where it's normally 5+ players to the flop, whether it's raised or unraised. that's the typical game i play and definitely the type of game i seek.

the kind of games where people tighten up against raises aren't as profitable. in fact, i would venture to say that those games aren't really "loose" then but rather, are tight. after all, if the flop is only heads-up or three-handed when you raise, how is that different from a tight table?

i'm definitely talking about the variant where people are just as loose to raises as they are without raises. of course, it won't be the exact same, but it'll be close.



harvey:

i still disagree.

with fewer players to the pot, your edge is also smaller. maybe your equity edge isn't, but your payoff edge, i.e. the amount of money you expect to earn (your EV, i guess).

either way, your expectation goes down whether your raise thins the field or not, since people dropping out decreases your EV while people staying in increases the pot size.

get what i'm saying?

to get nitpicky, also add in the points that less people calling your raises might mean a better range of hands, which makes your edge decrease even further, etc.

man, poker is freaking complex, isn't it?



stallion714:

you should get out of this mentality ASAP. the "tight on loose tables / loose on tight tables" is a big flawed myth.

on looser tables, you can exploit more mistakes postflop, and you have much better odds, and the pots are bigger, so you can afford to play more hands that do well multiway. on tighter tables, you have better ranges of hands playing against you, and you always have less pot odds, and the pots are always smaller, so you have to tighten up as well.

read SSHE if you haven't. if you have, read that afterthought on the preflop play. remember how the hand charts from the loose to tight tables actually have you loosening up the more players see the flop?



aseem

The bigger pots should make more hands profitable. I get that, but for every extra hand that sees the flop your slice of the cake decreases, right? It would seem that some of the hands you would play because of the inflated pots would be the biggest victims. At what point does this become a wash, and start working in your favor?
I'm just asking. It seems like checks and balances. Bigger stake of a smaller pot, or smaller stake of a larger pot.
It seems like, since you cant play infinity hands in this loose game, Playing more conservatively in general would be ideal.

aseem-

you're not alone in your line of thinking described in part 1. it's scary how much you said reflects my philosophy when it comes to the games you'll often see at party 3/6 tables and the like.

i've only read part 1 so far, but hopefully the remainder agrees w/ me as much as this first post :wink:

Chiggleslap

I just read part 2.

Aseem, you and I appear to be of the same breed of poker player. I'm not sure how old you are, exactly, but I'm pretty sure you're about the same age as I am (21) and are in a unique position where we've cut our teeth playing these loose passive low-limit online games, and have been able to learn somewhat unconventional way of beating these games. I don't want to say that some of the older, more experienced players who post here who may have learned the game playing in a completely different environment to what we find online are not just as successful or knowledgable. Any good player can make a killing online if they play above-average poker. So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with you, that in the case of small stakes online poker, there's more than one way to beat the game, and there are ways of doing so that may go against conventional wisdom, but are nevertheless valid and theoretically sound ways of doing so.

So far, we're 2 for 2 in sharing philosophies...

Chiggleslap

3/6 and 5/10 aren't much different, IMO.

I've worked up from .5/1 to 3/6 and 5/10 in the last 8 months or so in my spare time, so I've had a taste of all of them. Aseem's first two posts very much reflect my philosphy to this date, and it's undoubtedly led to my beating the game at a very respectful rate. Just wanted to throw that out there for you, in case you were unsure at the relevance of these theories at the mid-small stakes games like 3/6