Another benefit of the micro stakes

[frob23]

Today I was playing the $4NL full-ring tables again. And I couldn't help but notice one of my favorite things regarding the micro limits. Not only do people call too often when they have the worst hand but when they improve their hand, they rarely attempt to maximize their return on it.

For example, someone will call a bet on the flop with bottom pair. They'll turn two pair and call another bet on the turn. When the river is a very likely blank and they are checked to, they will often check behind. This happens on very safe boards for two pair hands. I happen to love it. Obviously, a raise on turn and/or a bet on the river is ideal. This exact scenario had to happen about 10 times today.

When I have a good hand, I can usually get called when I value bet. And when I think I might be behind, I can often get a very cheap showdown. The really funny thing is that I was playing very obvious poker when out of position. If they had been paying attention, they could have exploited the hell out of me. But no one did it. When I expected to be best on the river... I would bet and get called. When my hand rarely got called by worse, I checked... and they would check behind their hands (both better and worse). Over and over, I showed down tons of hands. And the pattern should have been very clear.

I remember once hearing someone talk about playing exploitably at the lowest levels. They were saying that you can be exploited but the players aren't good enough to do it. And that the exploitable play was often the most profitable. They said that if you had to choose between being exploitable or getting the most value, you should try for the most value. For the most part, I can't help but agree with that.

It all goes back to the old saying about just playing very basic poker when at the lowest levels. You can't out-think yourself unless you're willing to give up value.

[MikeyEl]

Just out of curiousity, do you ever get worried that playing "optimal" poker at these low stakes tables will affect your ability to play at higher stakes tables?

3-5 years ago, when I was in college, I used to play exclusively cash games. I loved the ups and downs, and would manage to still retain enough to log in another day. Plus, i had no expenses. I mean, who can't scrape up 10 bucks a week for a case of milwaukee's best light. Eventually i either lost it all, or lost a big portion of an upswing and withdrew the rest.

This past year, I started to play online poker a lot more more, and tried to play in some cash games and found myself losing, quickly. I had lost 50% of my deposit. (Of course, this was before i knew anything about BR management) I just sat at the tables I would when i visited AC. Fortunate for me, my brother hosted a pretty big live tournament, and I won. This caused me to decide to try out online tournaments. Thankfully, it was a natural fit, and has helped me enjoy playing online poker and profit quite a bit.

I used to hate tournaments because I thought they were such a waste of money, "only 10% of the people get paid" "so much time, so little reward... unless you win." My tune has obviously changed quite a bit.

Anyways, back to my question/topic...I began to realize that my "default" NLHE poker game has changed drastically because I have become a lot more "tournament oriented." While building my BR I would occasionally try my luck at some cash games, and typically have a losing session. I realized that this was because I was playing "tournament" poker at a cash table, which is quite predictable.

Are you concerned that your game will augment to this style of play? If not, how do you keep yourself from defaulting to this (self-described) "obvious" form of poker when you sit down at a higher stakes, deeper stack, table?

[ballboy75]

Well, this is an issue that players often speak of, being confined to a certain game format (ring,SNG,MTT...). Many believe they are "stuck" and arent good enough to play others things. I always try to play a little of each, it is fun to play different things and it helps your experience level. I used to only play SNG's, and i wasnt even that good in them, i just enjoyed playing against the same people and not having to switch tables.
now adays, I feel as if my MTT game is not too good, thus i try to get in at least 1 MTT per day. I only play a MTT for a very small percentage of my BR, to avoid getting low on money and avoid steaming if i lose. If you feel as if you really not up to playing different games, read some articles, get more comfortable with whatever it is youre feeling uncomfortable with.
Start slowly, dont risk too much of your money and if you se it isnt going wll, stop and read some more.

[RiverstarsVictim]

If you can understand the difference between tournament and cash games then I really dont see how you can play both formats the same way. The only time where the 2 formats can be played the same is the early stages of a deep stack tournament when you're starting with 100bb's. Once the blinds have gone up and you or your opponents no longer have 100bb's then it turns into a purely strategic tournament game.

The most important part of a tournament (aside from winning it ) is staying alive whereas a cash game you can simply rebuy. The blind/ante structure of a tournament forces you to play hands you wouldn't play at a cash table eg open shoving a small PP from early position is correct (depending on your stack size) in a tournament but bad play (or gambling) at a cash table. Depending on your stack size you'll need to be stealing blinds a lot lighter than you might at a cash table. There's also gonna be times where although you might have the correct odds to call in a tournament folding will be the correct play.

In a tournament, the strategy is forever changing depending on your stack size, your opponents stack sizes, the blinds/antes in relation to relative stack sizes, your position in relation to the 'in the money' places etc whereas cash games are more straight forward. If you're playing cash games optimally then you'll be selecting tables that suit your game whether you're hunting known fish/weak players, loose/tight tables whatever, the choice is yours. All you need to do is adjust to how the table is playing and mix it up a bit.

I'm sure others could explain the differences better than I can but hopefully you get the gist.

[travz21]

The biggest difference is basically the stacks related to the blinds and the misfortune of not being able to rebuy. Not all cash games are played the same either. Regular, deep, and super deep nl cash games are all played differently. Whatever the stack sizes compared to blinds are should determine how you play. I think super deep nl cash is the most skilled form of NLHE. Like the latest season of high stakes poker where they have stacks of 600bb+. No average player could ever walk in there and make any money like they can in tourneys.

[RiverstarsVictim]

Whatever the stack sizes compared to blinds are should determine how you play. I think super deep nl cash is the most skilled form of NLHE. Like the latest season of high stakes poker where they have stacks of 600bb+. No average player could ever walk in there and make any money like they can in tourneys.

Definately agree with the 1st quoted sentence which was the point I was trying to make but you made it sound much more simplified

Is there a game that accommodates 600bb online? Can you explain the difference between this and playing 100BB?. You might need bigger balls etc but the rules dont change? Just curious.

[frob23]

The size of your balls doesn't play a huge role when you're 600xbb. When you're playing super-stacked, you need to be much more aware of how the hand is playing out and the range of hands your opponent might have -- as well as the range of hands they can put you on. Unless there is a lot of action, it becomes very hard to get all-in when both players have 600xBB. Unless they're both aggressive as hell, it means there are pretty large hands behind them (usually -- HSP doesn't demonstrate this but that is mainly because of the players involved).

There is a lot of room to play with 600xBB... a lot of moves can be made before stacks are at risk. But once the pot becomes large (say 400xBB+)... someone usually has a hand strong enough to justify being there. I'll grant, I don't play high stakes and it's rare to play higher than 200-300xBB live... but it can really screw a game down unless everyone's drinking and the huge stacks were build from a bunch of earlier all-in (and not bought by all the players there).

[travz21]

Just saw the question now. The difference is you can make a ton of moves that you would never do in a standard or even 200bb deep nl cash game. Pot control is also a more important factor. You don't want to bloat a pot with 2 pair even when you could face a huge reraise worth 300bbs more or something. There will be a lot more read dependent plays as well. People are always weary of the absolute nuts or near nuts, because unless you have them, you are never really comfortable getting into a huge pot. In a standard game, you could only lose 100bbs and probably get all of it in on the flop. In a 600bb+ game, you would have to face huge bets on the flop, turn, and maybe even river if you still have money left, making every street more and more uncomfortable if you don't have the virtual nuts and you're being aggressed upon.

An example of that would be a hand on high stakes poker. I found this piece from an article online...

"The final hand of the episode involves Barry Greenstein picking up pocket Aces under the gun and raising to $2,500 which creates a family pot. All players called Greenstein’s raise here is a list to keep it easier to follow:

Durrrr – Qc-10c
Benyamine – 3d-3c
Elezra – Jd-9s
Ziigmund – 7h-6s
Negreanu – Kd-4d
Eastgate – 4h-2d
Brunson – As-9c

The flop came 2c-10d-2s giving Eastgate trip deuces with a four kicker. Greenstein believes it is a decent flop for his hand and bets out $10,000. Play comes to durrrr who has top pair with a queen kicker and raises to $37,300 with 7 players behind him! Eastgate smooth calls Dwan’s raise with his trip deuces and Greenstein calls the raise with his aces. Eastgate and Greenstein both check the turn when a 7 of diamonds landed and durrrr continued to speed and bet out $104,200 with his one pair. He gets Eastgate to fold his trip deuces and the option is now up to Greenstein who folds after taking some time. Durrrr knew exactly who had the best hand and the decision that Greenstein had to make with a short speech after stacking up at pot worth $133,500."

Durrrr knows he has a solid bluffing hand. He has a blocker to TT, which makes it easier to fire away, and he should be confident in getting any non 22 or T2 off the hand as well. So, in a standard 100bb cash game, either Greenstein or Eastgate would have no problem getting all in on that flop or turn against Durrrr, but when they are that deep, it's really tough to be put to the test like that.