Micro-Limit; Loosen Strategy??

I started playing micro-limit (1-2 cent) a couple months ago strictly on "gut". My style was to be quite aggressive when I thought I had best-hand, and try very few bluffs (except when occasionally willing to be "caught" bluffing for short money). By this site's standards, I was seeing WAY too many flops (maybe 50%), but over one month and maybe 40 hours playing this style, I ran $14 up to $55.

Then I found this site, and learned how the game "should" be played. I altered my starting-hand style accordingly, playing tight-aggressive and seeing at most 25% of the flops, and probably less than 5% of the rivers.

My game absolutely stagnated... for a month I stayed right at the $55 bankroll. I was pegged and couldn't get my strong-hand bets called, which led me to slow-play some strong hands and get poor yields or drawn-out. All the while I watched my (truly poor) opponents at these micro tables continue to play just about anything and everything they were dealt, and taking those lousy hands to the river.

I recently "loosened up" again, and have had better results. I will say that, for this micro level, I think I am well above average in reading the board and putting opponents onto hands correctly. If I think I have best-hand, I'll make drawing very expensive. And while seeing more flops, I'm not afraid to fold my hand after the flop. But one is permitted to see so many turns and rivers for just 1 BB, that I'll stay in with middle-pair and an overcard if they let me.

All this rambling is to ask whether others have experienced the same at VERY micro-limit tables... that you gotta loosen up and out-think your opponents during the hand, rather than just seeing flops with strong starting hands. (I also realize that this looser style may be "bad training" for higher-limits).

The advantage of good starting hand requirements is that you have cards better than the average person when the flop comes. You need this, regardless of how good yr postflop play is.

That said, you can loosen up a bit for the penny tables, but start by loosening up in position. If you're a good reader, position is as important as starting hands.

Most people experience something that could be called "beginner's luck". When you start, you often will run up the $ because you play without fear. As you learn a bit of strategy, you feel like you're constantly second-guessing yourself and your profits can suffer.

But your instinct is right: you DON'T want to get in the habit of playing loose, even for pennies, because it will be tough to break that habit later, when the money is deeper and the players are better.

Also consider playing limit. I wish I had done this way back when; it forces discipline upon you.

thanks for your thoughtful reply... I find your comment about having wished you'd played Limit earlier interesting... could you elaborate on why?

I actually started playing limit... but at micro levels there was just no way to take opponents out of a hand. No Limit at least makes those chasers pay to play. It just seems that in Limit, where 5 or more may be there at the turn-betting round, that one can't get enough in the pot to dissuade those straight and flush chasers. With No-Limit, a potsize bet either gets rid of them, or they pay dearly in the long run.

Perhaps I'm missing something?

hankr,

I started playing poker a couple of months ago. I play no-limit Hold'em - 0.01/0.02 (blinds) - at PokerStars. Since I found this site and read the essay on pre-flop strategy, I've improved my winnings significantly.

Seeing 25% of the flop, I've won 30$ in the last 15 days (about 2000 hands). 2000 hands is probably not enough to make strong conclusions but I still think it shows that it is not necessary to loosen your strategy in micro-limit tables in order to win in the long run.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone at FTR for the useful information I have found here

I've found it tempting to play more hands on limit (micro stakes, around .02/.04) tables, taking as many cheap peeks at the flop (and possibly the turn) as you can get away with, since it seems there's always one or two people at the table that are successful in doing just that, dragging pots every 2-3 hands in the process. Perhaps an experienced player can pull it off, knowing when to get out rather than get themselves into deeper trouble, but for beginners I'd suggest sticking to playing premium cards to start and then experimenting with weaker albeit suitable cards played from appropriate positions to increase their opportunities, rather than taking a peek at every flop you can see cheaply. In the long run, I think you'll be better off and save some pennies (which do add up) here and there that can be lost to playing weaker hands out of position just because you got to see the flop cheaply. And I think developing that habit/discipline will help when you move up to higher stakes, when a peek at the flop can cost dollars rather than cents. Just my $.02, based on my own experiences as a relatively new player, FWIW.

Originally Posted by hankr

thanks for your thoughtful reply... I find your comment about having wished you'd played Limit earlier interesting... could you elaborate on why?

I actually started playing limit... but at micro levels there was just no way to take opponents out of a hand. No Limit at least makes those chasers pay to play. It just seems that in Limit, where 5 or more may be there at the turn-betting round, that one can't get enough in the pot to dissuade those straight and flush chasers. With No-Limit, a potsize bet either gets rid of them, or they pay dearly in the long run.

Perhaps I'm missing something?

Limit is an entirely different game than NL. It's not about taking people out of a hand as much as it is forcing them to make unprofitable decisions. You are always looking long term when playing limit. It's about making the correct decisions time and time again because you know in the long run the correct decisions will lead to bankroll growth.

Limit does teach dicipline and gets you very familiar with the mathematical concepts and the application of them to lay a solid foundation for good poker play.

Get Small Stakes Hold 'em by Ed Miller and David Sklansky and read it thoroughly. It is guaranteed to change the way you think about limit hold 'em.

Are you going to always play micro-limits? I'm big on forming habits. So, how will you break this habit when you increase the stakes? Hell, if playing loose works on micro, why wouldn't work at $2/4? The only problem is that you disregard the leak playing loose brings into your game at micro-stakes, but at higher stakes it'll show.

Play your game by all means! I'm just saying consider what game you'll be playing next too.

Originally Posted by hankr

I actually started playing limit... but at micro levels there was just no way to take opponents out of a hand. No Limit at least makes those chasers pay to play. It just seems that in Limit, where 5 or more may be there at the turn-betting round, that one can't get enough in the pot to dissuade those straight and flush chasers. With No-Limit, a potsize bet either gets rid of them, or they pay dearly in the long run.

Perhaps I'm missing something?

yes you are missing something. in limit you do not want to take opponents out of a hand. you want them in. you want them chasing and chasing weak draws and paying you to do so. that's where the vast majority of your money comes from.

meanwhile you need to pursue draws too, but only strong draws that will scoop the pot when they hit. and instead of "chasing" (check-calling) you bet them on the come to grow the pot.

ChezJ

Very interesting thoughts here... thank you.

Do you folks mostly specialize in one or the other; Limit or No-Limit.? Do you think that there are players whose "personality" lends it self to one or the other?

I read the Miller-Sklansky book, a couple times, and it was terrific and I learned a lot. But I couldn't help thinking as I read it that Limit is a very long-term "grinder" kind of game... much like card-counting in BlackJack (been there done that). Yes, you have an advantage and yes you can win, but it is almost like watching grass grow in terms of enjoyment.

My objectives are only to be a winning recreational low-stakes player. In 3 months, I've taken $25 to $280 playing nickel-dime NL and some $5 MTTs (7 tourneys, 3 ITMs). In this nickel-dime league (admittedly the low minor leagues) I would guess I'm in the top quartile skill-wise; and as (if) my bankroll grows, I plan to move up in stakes. At $375 bankroll, I plan to move to dime-quarter.

I just find NL provides more playing enjoyment and have convinced myself it is a better "fit" for my personality and objectives.

Does this make sense? Have others gone through a similar self-analysis?

Originally Posted by aokrongly

Are you going to always play micro-limits? I'm big on forming habits. So, how will you break this habit when you increase the stakes? Hell, if playing loose works on micro, why wouldn't work at $2/4? The only problem is that you disregard the leak playing loose brings into your game at micro-stakes, but at higher stakes it'll show.

Play your game by all means! I'm just saying consider what game you'll be playing next too.

I understand your cautionary comments.

What I have done is try to vary my style according to game and circumstance. I have created five different cheat-sheets that list the top 35%, 30%, 25%, 20% and 15% starting hands (plus a table for outs and pot-odds for turn and river).

In a nickel-dime ring game, where most are both loose and passive, I play from the 35% starting-hand sheet... and I'm still tighter than 90% of the table. After 2 or 3 hours, its amazing how close my session stats are to the 35% flops-seen target.

In a MTT, I start with the 15% starting-hand sheet, playing VERY tight (but aggressive when I do get a hand) until we get close to the bubble... maybe ITM plus 15 players remaining. Here, when everyone else tightens up to get ITM, I loosen up with the 30% starting-hand sheet and get very aggressive betting-wise. I try to affect an immediate and dramatic change in styles. I've moved up a lot of positions during this period when so many fold to any betting strength. Once ITM, I shift down to the 20% sheet again and especially try to pick on the smaller stacks.

The point being, I understand the risks of establishing one "style" that may work in lower limits, but will crash and burn at higher limits. Whether I can translate my theoretical understanding to actual game-play at higher stakes is yet to be seen.

Thanks again.

Your decision to play a hand or not depends on more than just what 2 cards you have. Also, consider variance when comparing strategies. I once had about a 10,000 stretch of cards where I about broke even!

One other thought, is that game raked? If it's not raked you should be able to play a ton of hands profitably for 1 small bet and/or with position

Originally Posted by hankr

Very interesting thoughts here... thank you.

Do you folks mostly specialize in one or the other; Limit or No-Limit.? Do you think that there are players whose "personality" lends it self to one or the other?

I read the Miller-Sklansky book, a couple times, and it was terrific and I learned a lot. But I couldn't help thinking as I read it that Limit is a very long-term "grinder" kind of game...

My objectives are only to be a winning recreational low-stakes player. In 3 months.

I just find NL provides more playing enjoyment and have convinced myself it is a better "fit" for my personality and objectives.

Does this make sense? Have others gone through a similar self-analysis?

I also struggled a long time with which game I wanted to play limit or NL. After playing both for a while, I chose limit. I do think the game you chose that is best for you is dependant somewhat on your personality, but more so on your thought process. I'm very analytical and methematically minded. This lends itself well to limit.

Limit is more of a grind type play, but that doesn't mean I find it any less enjoyable. I find it more rewarding to build a big pot risking less of my own money in the process and dragging huge pots with profitable draws than busting someone in a NL game. In a NL game you often only beat one person every hand. Often times in limit you will have three or more people who see the showdown and there is something gratifying about knowing that you had a better hand than each and every one of them and didn't have to push your whole stack into the center to drag a big pot.

It sounds that you prefer NL more and that is fine, but if you're goal is to be a recreational low stakes player, you may want to rethink playing limit. If you want to play recreationally most recreational games are in fact limit games. Few casinos offer recreational no limit games.