Limit Poker

psand · **Joined:** Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:16 am **Posts:** 4334

equalizer wrote:

Quote:

I think its a lot easier to read low limit poker players than No Limit poker players.

I do disagree with this one - when someone check-calls regardless of how strong their hand is, how do you read that? (And yes, I've seen people check-call flopped trips or other big hands to the river, as I am sure we all have.) I do agree though in the sense that some low limit players only bet when they have a hand (or call), that's an easy read, but it's not that common in my opinion to come across someone who isn't at least slightly tricky (even if being "tricky" only means limping with a bigger hand preflop or check-calling two pair or better to showdown).

The reason I find it easier to read No Limit players is that there play tends to be a lot more straight forward in large part because of the fact most low limit players do not bet or raise with a draw. And while there are always exceptions and some players are hard to read, I was talking in generalities not suggesting that iot is always the case, just frequently the case.

Local Rock · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 8:34 am

TWO4THEMONEY wrote:

I'm so getting my money's worth with this question (Org.post)

So how's the cocktail service, TWO4?

beaverdance wrote:

And my term "respect for the game" is...

300 hours in 33 days

docglock · **Joined:** Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:08 pm **Posts:** 202

Quote:

if you say "when you have 9 loose cannons at the table chasing everything, you are not going to win. If you have pocket aces with 6 callers and no one is folding chances are you are behind by the time you get to the river. If you are playing in a higher stake game chances are you will be heads up" then you don't understand poker. The simple fact of the matter is that in poker you measure success by how many chips you win -- not how many pots. So let me have 9 loose canons chasing me down every time. I am happy to win less pots as long as the pots I win are big pots because of all these chasers. And sure in a higher limit game your aces are heads up at the river with the one guy who beat you. The guys just stopped putting their money in earlier so what. comming second pays the same as comning in 5th

Well listening to all the banter about playing with 9 loose cannons then why are you not playing then. If this game is that soft then why are you not playing. I love limit holdem games and omaha 8ob. But who does not bitch in a game where you 3 bet and 7 2 suited smooths call. I like loose players at the table but not the whole table. Playing small limits is like playing with play money on the net it is a cap fest.

psand · **Joined:** Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:16 am **Posts:** 4334

docglock wrote:

Quote:

if you say "when you have 9 loose cannons at the table chasing everything, you are not going to win. If you have pocket aces with 6 callers and no one is folding chances are you are behind by the time you get to the river. If you are playing in a higher stake game chances are you will be heads up" then you don't understand poker. The simple fact of the matter is that in poker you measure success by how many chips you win -- not how many pots. So let me have 9 loose canons chasing me down every time. I am happy to win less pots as long as the pots I win are big pots because of all these chasers. And sure in a higher limit game your aces are heads up at the river with the one guy who beat you. The guys just stopped putting their money in earlier so what. comming second pays the same as comning in 5th

Well listening to all the banter about playing with 9 loose cannons then why are you not playing then. If this game is that soft then why are you not playing. I love limit holdem games and omaha 8ob. But who does not bitch in a game where you 3 bet and 7 2 suited smooths call. I like loose players at the table but not the whole table. Playing small limits is like playing with play money on the net it is a cap fest.

Well firsty because these games are a myth. i still haven't seen the game where everyone calls all bets to the river despite all the claims. Second my problem playing low limit is that I tend to play badly because even though I know that absolute value of the bets means nothing and I shouyld base my deciisions on relative values (pot odds) I still tend to think to myself well who cares I'll call that bet whats $2.

Unfortunately the limits that i would like to play are very popular here in vegas, and though a few games exist they at rooms I do not like to play in. Ideally I would like to be playing $10-$20 -- thats just about right for my bankroll and risk tolerance. But i don't really care to play at the Mirage And when i have bene their the game did not look like a good game, it was shorthanded with little action.

Dap Poker · **Posted:** Sat May 23, 2009 10:52 pm

Hello,

As a low limit player (both on the net and live), I'm going to throw my two cents in.

I think that the people who are arguing that it is very difficult to beat the 9 fish calling everything are missing is just how different you have to play low limit poker than other poker games (even higher limit games where a larger share of people play fairly well). I managed to barely beat the rake playing pretty basic ABC poker. Not huge fun but good learning experience. I'm starting to figure out (with the help of a great book called "Small Stakes Hold'em by Ed Miller & David Sklansky) how to better beat these games. Since first reading the book, I'm up around 3 big blind per hour at the micro and low limits online. It's not huge money, but I'm pretty steadily beating the games now instead of playing break even and I'm still only starting to grasp the concepts. It's a lot more fun now too, since I really hate losing.

Beverdance is correct that "respect for the game includes employing a modicum of strategy" but what I think he fails to realize is that a much larger share of people at 2-4 really aren't "poker players" but really people who play poker. Sounds like a stupid distinction, but a ton of these people won't ever crack a poker book, join a discussion forum, pay real attention at the table, or even just go back and think over sessions after they leave (except for bad beats or Jackpots). They are sitting at the table because they enjoy "playing cards" and poker is cheaper than blackjack. They will never have the respect for the game that a poker player should, because they AREN'T poker players. Cool. I'm happy to have at my table, they'll probably yack it up, joke around, have a drink or 10, have some fun and donate to my bankroll. Then they will reload or come back for more next week and tell me how fun it was to be at my table because I'll be joking around with them. I'll take a table of them over the "big time no limit wannabes" that I've run into all too often at the 1-2 NL tables; I believe Local Rock provided the quintessential characterization of these people as "several socially maladjusted pompous douchebags out there crapping on my lawn" Bravo Rock!

Dave

P.S. I've also met some cool people at NL games and had some great discussions with NL players on this site, so I know it's not all bad in that part of the poker world.

equalizer · **Joined:** Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:39 am **Posts:** 65

Great response Dave. And make sure you get rakeback online! You should be able to attain 2.5 BB per hour no problem with rakeback (since the rakeback itself is worth 1-1.3 BB per hour). Personally I much prefer limit online, the NL games are usually tight and one ends up making less there than in the similar bankroll-sized limit game.

psand · **Joined:** Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:16 am **Posts:** 4334

Dap Poker wrote:

Psand is correct that "respect for the game includes employing a modicum of strategy" but what I think he fails to realize is that a much larger share of people at 2-4 really aren't "poker players" but really people who play poker. Sounds like a stupid distinction, but a ton of these people won't ever crack a poker book, join a discussion forum, pay real attention at the table, or even just go back and think over sessions after they leave (except for bad beats or Jackpots). They are sitting at the table because they enjoy "playing cards" and poker is cheaper than blackjack. They will never have the respect for the game that a poker player should, because they AREN'T poker players. Cool. I'm happy to have at my table, they'll probably yack it up, joke around, have a drink or 10, have some fun and donate to my bankroll. Then they will reload or come back for more next week and tell me how fun it was to be at my table because I'll be joking around with them. I'll take a table of them over the "big time no limit wannabes" that I've run into all too often at the 1-2 NL tables; I believe Local Rock provided the quintessential characterization of these people as "several socially maladjusted pompous douchebags out there crapping on my lawn" Bravo Rock!

Hey . . I'm NOT the guy who was talking about "respect for the game." That was beaverdance. Please don't confuse us.

And While I agree with you that most people playing low limit holdem are simply recreational poker players who give little thought to the game when they are not playing it, I disagree with the idea that this has anything to do with "respect for the game."

Dap Poker · **Posted:** Mon May 25, 2009 10:59 am

Psand,

My bad on the misattribution, I ought to know better than to write when I'm tired, I always make dumb mistakes. I corrected it in the original post.

Equalizer,

Unfortunately, I signed up to the online sites (Tilt & Stars) before I knew about rakeback and they are nitty about letting you change accounts. I looked a while back and it didn't seem worth the hassle to screw around with my tilt account, but it is something I need to look into again; especially since I'm actually playing above the micro limits now (in the big 25/50 cent limit games

).

Dave

The Piker · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:53 pm

Yikes!
All of this math only makes sense over the long haul. "Poker is just one long session", right? But what about a part-time player?
Most people at 2/4 are probably like me in the sense that they are in LV 1-4 times a year, with a clearly defined amount of money "to spend" at the tables. We get in maybe 4-6 hours of poker a day, have breakfast and dinner with our wives, and maybe see a show or 2. This type of statistical analysis is pretty meaningless against the 30-60 hours of poker I get to play a year.
But unlike most of us, I have been reading books, reading the forums here and practicing at the micro-limit tables on line. I have found that if I find the right game, I can show a small profit and have fun being social and drinking. As to the type of game I prefer, I like the afternoons at the MC instead of nights at MGM. Tighter rather than loose. Probably the type of game that would have the NLHE players here order a Drano on the rocks from the cocktail waitress. My point being, that the slight edge I might have from being aware of position and what really is a good starting hand, when the pot odds are correct to stay with a drawing hand, when to get away... I can have fun, and while I wont ever walk away with a big score, I'll still have a better shot at 4 profitable hours that I used to have at the BJ tables.
[url=http://www.TickerFactory.com/]

[/url]

Limit Poker

Who is online