Microstakes strategy post: Fold 'em!

Having just started a bankroll afresh, I've found myself at a fishy site playing 50NL. I thought I'd got rid of a particular leak, but obviously not. This is a strategy post I'm making in an attempt to fix that leak.


My proposition: When in doubt, muck 'em.

You raise preflop with two big cards and get a caller. You hit top pair and a weak kicker. You bet, and your opponent raises - fold 'em.

You 3bet preflop with QQ, an ok-ish TAG 4bets small. You call but if you don't get your set, fold 'em.

You raise preflop with 55 and the flop comes 248 rainbow. You cbet, your opponent raises. You've been raising pre and cbetting a lot, so he could definitely be playing back at you - fold 'em.


I'm sure you know it all too well - you get into a tough spot, think of a couple of hands your opponent might have that you can beat, and "call to re-evaluate". It's stupid.

Most of the time, calling to re-evaluate is absolute bullshit out of position and pretty crappy in position.



Let me give you the poker theory behind this:

1: Commitment. This is so so so important. How many times have you called to re-evaluate and found a third of your stack in the middle with shitty cards? The less money in your stack compared to the pot, the harder it is to fold. I regularly stack bad players by getting them to put too much of their money in the pot whilst they're still not sure whether they have the best hand - before they know it they're too potfucked to fold.

2: Equity vs. range. Who cares if you can beat XX and YY? AA-LL are all possible holdings for your opponent and they have you crushed.


"But what if my opponent turns out to be one of those maniacs after I've folded!?"

Go tell someone who cares. You don't moan when you fold 62o UTG and the flop is 345. (If you do then you should set aside an amount to lose at poker per month as you would with slots) It's more likely than not that he's raising a good hand.

Of course, if he turns out to be a maniac, this post doesn't apply. If a good player is raising your cbets all the time, learn to play back or move tables.


But, the vast majority of microstakes players are awful and hopefully this post will improve your winrate a bit. Remember: when in doubt, muck 'em!



(Feel free to take this to pieces!)

-A

Yeah i agree, at lower stakes i've noticed raising ranges are tighter than expected.

This is kind of like saying that in RPS if your opponents pick scissors every time then you should pick rock every time. That doesn't make it wrong of course.

Good 'ol rock. Nothing beats that.

Originally Posted by mcatdog

This is kind of like saying that in RPS if your opponents pick scissors every time then you should pick rock every time. That doesn't make it wrong of course.

dammit, too early to change my sig again

did you fold your good hand on the flop vs ppl's minraise every single time?

This is definetely read dependent, Ive noticed lately there is usually one table maniac, and he is pushing all the time with marginal hands and every now and then he has his monster. If its this player you are up against I would call and reevaluate/ or straight up push it all in, if its one of the other players you may be behind and have to fold.

Originally Posted by pokerfan

did you fold your good hand on the flop vs ppl's minraise every single time?

I don't think you get it. When our opponent raises us we don't actually have a good hand anymore - our equity vs. his range is crappy. Relative hand strength means a lot and if the idea of mucking TPGK is scary you need to work on your game. I was tempted to write about playing back when we know he's giving us shit but that'd be a long nonsensical mess to read.



mrhappy, I definitely agree it's read dependent, but we don't gain reads for a while and against unknowns fold is a much much better default than call/reevaluate/stack off/whatever.

I am beginning to dislike a lot of these types of posts on here. Why must we all be so general and definitive, it's like poker is a static un-evolving game.

Folding, yes, is fine when a passive opponent shows aggression when facing a bet.

Folding, yes, is fine when an opponent bets and their range is ahead of ours.

Folding, yes, is fine when our stack is being threatened and we have a marginal hand.

What you cannot do is some here and tell everyone to fold all the time b/c you're playing against fishy $50nl players and you've effectively learned to nut-camp.

I'm not saying I don't like the message of your post; however, I think it's way too broad/general/etc... You don't take into account player types, board textures, past history, ranges, etc... Believe it or not, those things still matter at 50nl. It's why anyone who reads a starting-hand chart and a "guide" can beat 50nl (or lower stake for that matter) for a positive win-rate. It's also why there are some people who've beat 50nl for 9ptbb/100 over 20k hands....

effective stacks play the key role in top pair hand. Not many ppl are brave enough to fold over pair, TPTK & tpgk hand when terrible short stacks raise or push over on the flop.

Originally Posted by Ash256

Originally Posted by pokerfan

did you fold your good hand on the flop vs ppl's minraise every single time?

I don't think you get it. When our opponent raises us we don't actually have a good hand anymore - our equity vs. his range is crappy. Relative hand strength means a lot and if the idea of mucking TPGK is scary you need to work on your game. I was tempted to write about playing back when we know he's giving us shit but that'd be a long nonsensical mess to read.



mrhappy, I definitely agree it's read dependent, but we don't gain reads for a while and against unknowns fold is a much much better default than call/reevaluate/stack off/whatever.

- pokerfan, sorry, I should've clarified that this was standard stacks. (40+BB)

Spenda, I fully agree with your post, and in fact I get pissed off when I see people trying to apply specific rules to a dynamic game.

I seem to have failed miserably at clarifying the type of leak in my post - I find myself making the mistakes outlined in my OP, yet I'm fully aware of REM, commitment thresholds, etc.

It's more of an emotional leak than anything else, and it's something I see in many microstakes posts - probably discipline is at the root of my post and maybe I should've written about that instead.

My post was meant as an initial stop-gap until micro players become aware of true poker fundamentals (which I sincerely hope you teach at grinderschool!), and a good base to start. I still can't believe that I beat 20NL thoroughly when my thought process was shit like "I have top pair and that is probably a good hand".


FWIW, I think aok's 19 hand chart is an awesome place to start playing poker.

I've never understood why people use the word "dynamic" to describe poker.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

I've never understood why people use the word "dynamic" to describe poker.

I don't understand why you don't understand it.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

I've never understood why people use the word "dynamic" to describe poker.

Poker is constantly evolving - player pools, profitable styles, knowledge at the top, stakes, etc.

On top of that pretty much no 2 situations in poker are ever the same.

I read this and thought - jeez, someone else who has my leak!! Learning to read the game is hard, and ash makes a great point. I call all too often HOPING the guy will check the turn or river, knowing he's going to value bet 'cuz he's way ahead. In fact, trusting that first instinct that says "Watch out! You're beat!" is one thing that I continually have to relearn. Losing half a stack kinda reinforces the lesson.

Also, the more aggressive you are postflop with c-bets on air and prayer, the more often that a play-back (at NL10, at least) means you're way behind. Checked PT, and I bet 65% of the time after a preflop show of strength, and raise 5% more. I tend to run over NL10 tables, and shove people off hands postflop. So...when we're playing hard postflop, we're very likely behind when someone comes back at us.

I think this is a pretty standard problem for microstakes - calling one too many streets when you very likely behind. I think my opponents routinely pay off one too many streets - sometimes more, against very straightforward play.

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

I am beginning to dislike a lot of these types of posts on here. Why must we all be so general and definitive, it's like poker is a static un-evolving game.

Just FYI, this is a big leak for me, and I really liked this particular post. I guess I didn't see it the way you did. For me, it was just a reminder of the old poker adage: "bet when you're (likely) ahead, fold when you're (likely) behind." I err toward betting, so I tend to get in trouble trapping myself, then make it worse by calling a street when I know I should fold. I read it as a "this can be a leak for people" post, not as "everyone needs to always fold marginal holdings."

i agree that this OP "spoke to me," too. the generality is effective, imo.

specifics are better, but w/o them, generalities get the specifics started.

yes, most times you need to fold to aggression w/o a bonafide monster at lower stakes. but, you need to mix in check/raises, too. maybe 10% of the time.

and you need to raise their donk bets a little more often than that.

it simply makes them think twice before doing it to you...and helps keep their cards "face up" when they do raise/lead into you.