Is limit cash games just not right for every player?

[patchesdacat]

I am just terrible at the very low stakes up to 1-2$, Ive read some of the good books , I just don't get it. I end over playing or under playing hands, and its i little hard to "put people on a hand" when they play almost anything.

I do fine at NL sats., so I'm not completely brain dead. Are some people destined to fail at limit?

[KoRnholio]

It's definitely a different form of poker. Much more mathematical and requires pushing small edges to the max.

There's also a lot more variance due to the fact that you often can't give opponents poor odds when they are chasing. Sometimes you can check-raise to confront players with calling 2 bets cold (thus reducing their odds), but that is about it.

[mawlin]

lotta donks in low limit games. be patient and and play the sure hands.

[Chopper]

be patient and and play the sure hands.

NO!!

you cant just eek out some scratch by playing only the best hands. you have to be able to read your opponent and exploit him for that extra BB. just playing fit/fold limit will get you killed at all but the lowest stakes.

yes, its a different animal to some degree. but, the principles are the same. deny odds when you can. steal the blinds. however, defend YOUR blinds much more often. use a c/r. dont bluff as much in medium and large pots, but definitely pounce on smaller ones against the right players.

LHE is mathematical exploitation backed up by a little mix of big ball syndrome. be aggressive, but not when your villain isnt likely to fold off middle pair.

and, realize that most times that guy chased, he was correct to do so beause of the odds or the fact there were 4 people in the pot. therefore, play your draws. mid pair and a gutter is a pretty decent hand in a multiway pot. and, mid pair and a solid flush draw should be jammed. those are two scenarios that are vastly different than tourney or NL games.

[raivo]

I think it is very difficult to win money playing limit hold'em. NL hold'em is so much better

[arborman]

I think it is very difficult to win money playing limit hold'em. NL hold'em is so much better

Me, I suck at bridge. Therefore it is impossible to be good at bridge.

[JWalker]

The problem with low limit hold'em is the rake. You are probably quite a decent winner if it weren't for the rake. In NL there is just a lot more room to beat your bad opponents and the rake.

Even top limit pros may have trouble beating the very low limits. I think most low limit grinders make a living off of benes and have very modest win rates. The games have just gotten really tough to beat.

I would err on the side of being too tight, because when the marginal hands win they are going to win less (again due to the rake).

[Ragnar4]

NO!!

you cant just eek out some scratch by playing only the best hands. you have to be able to read your opponent and exploit him for that extra BB. just playing fit/fold limit will get you killed at all but the lowest stakes.

yes, its a different animal to some degree. but, the principles are the same. deny odds when you can. steal the blinds. however, defend YOUR blinds much more often. use a c/r. dont bluff as much in medium and large pots, but definitely pounce on smaller ones against the right players.

LHE is mathematical exploitation backed up by a little mix of big ball syndrome. be aggressive, but not when your villain isnt likely to fold off middle pair.

and, realize that most times that guy chased, he was correct to do so beause of the odds or the fact there were 4 people in the pot. therefore, play your draws. mid pair and a gutter is a pretty decent hand in a multiway pot. and, mid pair and a solid flush draw should be jammed. those are two scenarios that are vastly different than tourney or NL games.

Bolded Info is contrary to what I've read from Sklansky. The larger the pot, the more likely you ought to be to take a stab at the pot bluffwise. Simply because you're risking one bet to win a ton of bets. It doesn't have to work often at all in order to be profitable.

[BennyLaRue]

Bolded Info is contrary to what I've read from Sklansky. The larger the pot, the more likely you ought to be to take a stab at the pot bluffwise. Simply because you're risking one bet to win a ton of bets. It doesn't have to work often at all in order to be profitable.

Context is really important here. IIRC, you're talking about Sklansky advocating bluffing more with large pots only when heads-up and, diverting from Dirty Hands Sklansky for a sec, there is a pot size range where this is relevant. If your bluff offers even 12:1 odds to a player who has shown any aggressiveness in the hand at all, it's pretty much pointless because calling your bet in such a large pot will usually be correct.

[StarlightCoast]

I am just terrible at the very low stakes up to 1-2$, Ive read some of the good books , I just don't get it. I end over playing or under playing hands, and its i little hard to "put people on a hand" when they play almost anything.

I do fine at NL sats., so I'm not completely brain dead. Are some people destined to fail at limit?

I am a limit Holdem cash game player and over the years a winning one. If you have Poker Tracker it would be much easier to analize your limit game if you could post some of your numbers or stats in these limit games. "Putting people on a hand" is actually fairly easy, but you need to be able to isolate what that range is and the only way is through notes you have taken on their play in past encounters.

It is also vitally important that in order to give you the best chance at winning it is vital you avoid overly loose tables. Yes, i said avoid them at all costs. instead, you need to be playing tables that have an average percentage of the players seeing a flop in the 24-32% range and if the table falls out of that range get out of it and fire up another. Many will disagree on this point, but you will logically do a lot better when you have only 2 or 3 people going to the flop and then possibly the same number to showdown, then you will with 5. Your big hands will hold up more and the suckouts will be lessened dramatically. In my own case the tables with an average saw flop was above 32% I show losses in excess of (-$23). Overly tight tables can be just as bad or even worse. On tables with the average seeing the flop is below 24% I show losses of nearly (-$40). But the middle ground is where I want to be and I think most everyone should be. On tables with the average saw flop is in that 24-32% range profits are over $220.

I guess the real question is what are you expecting in these limit games. How much money are you looking to make. In my own personal case I will take my play for the month of June at .25/.50 limit in which I have played just under 15,000 hands so far and have earned $160.95. JWalker mentioned the rake and in these hands I have personally paid, through my winning hands, over $117 in rake, but even with the rake paid i am still showing a profit of over $160 which is an earn rate of 2.18bb/100. For me this is extremely adequate for my needs, goals, and plans. Would this kind of earn rate be acceptable to you? Would you be willing to grind, and grind, and grind for wat amounts to $1.27 per hour? Many people fail in limit because their expectations far exceed what can be logically expected and they try to push where they should not. Is this an issue in your case? Only you can really answer these questions, but with some screenshots posted we might be able to help you pin it down.

lotta donks in low limit games. be patient and and play the sure hands.

This is a very bad approach and a trap i fell into last year. Avoid doing this at all costs. This approach cost me over $200 at the ring games. I have since recovered that in the last 30 days by correcting the approach with the help of one of my regular blog readers.

[rawbad]

its such a grind but there is money just not big money in it most people are there for fun mainly and really care to much about loosing 5 bucks so i like taking it but it is a grind