I've been rethinking some basic notions of poker strategy lately. Specifically, I've been pondering how to improve my results at theh micro-stakes tables. Why? Because I can’t seem to win anything in the cheap seats, that’s why.
My buddy Bret was in town this week and has been kicking ass at the 2/4-cent games. Your's truly, meanwhile, has been struggling mightily. Both Bret and I are playing the PS $5 experiment, but while he's up to $13 in just 3 weeks, I've been unable to stay above $3.
I've thus far played ~4000 hands in the experiment, but I can't seem to get any real bankroll traction. Contrast this to my non-experiment play over on FTP, where I've made a steady 3xBB/100 hands profit at the $1/2 limit tables. I'm playing exactly the same way on FTP as I am on PS, so the results should be about the same, right?
Wrong.
As Bret has pointed out to me, the difference between a 2/4-cent game and a $1/2 game is profound. In the $1/2 game, 2-3 players typically see a flop. This is because the players are tighter, and because a raise will usually thin the field. If you're dealt AQ UTG, for example, a raise will generally get you heads up against another player. At worst, you’ll be in a 3-way pot. In other words, your AQ remains fairly strong.
In a typical 2/4-cent game, however, a raise almost never serves the intended purpose of thinning the herd. In these loose-passive games, 5 or more players often see a flop. A raise is seen as an opportunity by the opp to see a flop with a big pot. It almost seems like raises encourage people to join the hand, not drop out. Suddenly, you're in a 6-way hand and your AQ is dog meat and the only thing you’ve accomplished is waste two small bets instead of one.
The secret, says the sage from Georgia, is to limp into the pots and then get out if you don’t flop 2-pair or better. Pairs up to QQ should all be treated equally, too. If you don’t flop a set, run for the hills. At least one person has an ace and is fishing for another to come by the river. In other words, instead of a tight-aggressive approach to the game, you need to play a tight-passive strategy. See cheap flops, wait for the goods, and then take your profit.
And you know what? It kinda, sorta works. I was down to $1 again this week (see my last blog entry for the gory details). I basically figured I had nothing to lose, so I tried Bret’s method. And so far, it seems to be working. I’m up to $3 in the past two days and made another $.23 this morning in 50 hands. In today's session, I folded continuously until I picked up JJ in early position. I limped with the hand (despite my intense desire to raise, btw), and got six people to call. The flop came rags, I bet to see where I stood, and all but two guys folded. The turn was a rag. Instead of firing into the pot, however, I checked. They checked behind, so I figured my JJ was good. River was another blank. I bet, and one fold and one call later, I walked away with a pretty healthy little pot. Net gain for the session was the equivalent of 6xBB per 100 hands.
Not too shabby. Yes, it's weird to play this passively… but it is seemingly effective. Clearly, this strategy would never work in a $1/2 game—but, I’m not in a $1/2 game, am I? As the guru likes to say, “son, you’ve just had an ‘aha’ moment."
Yep, it appears I have.
All-in for now…
-Bug
No comments:
Post a Comment