Low Level Cash Game’s Dirty Little Secret
This is going to be a problem article. There’s a one line answer. As soon as I make the point, the rest of the blog is annoyingly superfluous. What am I worried about? Most of my blogs can reach than point without stopping for a breath.
OK, here we go: Low level games reward the tight-passive. Hell, they’ll even reward the weak-passive at times. There. I said it. I feel somehow cleansed.
If you look across blogdom, macho types are kicking sand in the face of the above. [pound chest – shout tight-aggressive – testosterone rush – win breeding rights] OK, I do like to overstate and do anthropomorphism in reverse. But, lets be honest. It is fun acting like the 800# gorilla in a game. Sometimes we even get the cards to pull it off.
I was reading another blog about technique and he noticed the table being tight passive. That is a legit place to go aggressive. This was no limit. He had something like Q9. Not sure if it was suited. Hit two pair. He describe his opponent as tight. He felted her with his two pair against her middle pair. He was also down in chips before that. She dumped over 300-bucks to him. He said she tilted and attributed it to his superior play. Maybe. But, that play is common on lower limit tables. And his being under water before the hand doesn’t indicate he was all that successful in the aggression department.
When I started playing some stud, I went to JB for advice. He advised against slow playing big 3rd street hands. He was adamant about it. He plays higher than I do. For me the advise wasn’t working out. His other piece of advise was spot on. That was to worry more about losing hands/money than the winning side. So tight worked and aggressive didn’t.
My early inclination was to be a no limit specialist. I abhorred limit games. Then HORSE caught my fancy. Not being a limit geek, I had a serious disadvantage. Those who were limit players weren’t that far ahead. They were mostly Hold’em types and played aggressive when in the H-phase. Other times that mindset was a disadvantage that would pay off. I’m also not a great Omaha High/Low player. So, I’m pretty brick-like at that and that isn’t a lot of fun. I found my profit in the stud games and migrated there and it has stuck.
Stud is an interesting game. It exposes more card and it exposes tendencies. It also has bigger hands than the Hold’em type expect. Yet, small two pairs and even the occasional big pair can win some pots. A Hold’em specialist has a lot to adjust too and playing their old hands isn’t +EV – even if they are tight-aggressive.
The stock way to a superior games consists of betting to isolate. The idea is to kick out chasers and punish weaker hands. That’s great at middle limits where you can accomplish the task. But, if you’ve followed Glenda’s discussion of Stud8 hands – and you should – you see that the superior play she has is less rewarded than you (and she) would hope. I’ll also confess that my tendency is toward that and I fight it on my better sessions. Tight-aggressive is fun – along with intellectually satisfying.
Respect isn’t something we have in abundance at these tables. Our tendency is to be a doubting Thomas. That may be the most -EV tendency I see at these tables and one I also have to fight. They/we can often ignore the nut potential that exceeds our made hand.
I have detailed this morass and could go on and on about various tendencies. But, the goal is to figure out how to play for not only fun but profit. At the low limits that ends up being a pretty sad technique – tight-passive. Or, on good days/hands we can make it tight-passive-aggressive. You follow JB’s idea of losing less early and do your punishing late. If you are aggressive early you must be working a plan that’s beyond what we’d normally consider higher level play. Often, things like raising late with a lot of limpers actually prices in the ability to call with a drawing hand and reveals your strength in the process. If you are doing that early and not driving out anybody, you are in real trouble. Hence, you ’slow play’ more than you would at a higher limit. It isn’t the most pleasant technique but being more passive does pay.
I do play more hands as a tight-passive. I’m close to a loose-passive. That seems even worse. But it is what Negreanu promotes – at least to a degree. It is low ball and trying to outplay. I don’t like the low hands that are killers at 8 or better. A low straight hand is worse than having some high cards with a pair of gutshot draws to straight and flush. You need to read the ups closely to make that work but it is workable. Its also an easy hand to get away from.
I actually believe that it is easier – with some cards and that happens regardless of the limit – to play higher limits. You can have more straight-forward objectives. Playing the weaker game is hard to get around intellectually and isn’t as gratifying.
ADDENDUM:
Over the weekend on PokerStars, I played another one of those $16.50 HORSE tournaments. And, early I played the tight-passive-aggressive to great results – making hay in the stud portions. I lead the tournament frequently and seldom dropped below the top 20. With the blind getting up there and in the top five, My set floated a boat against a weak looking board on the other side on 6th street. I was pretty sick and almost out when he played his 3 down aces to cripple me. Hey, that’s poker, right? And, it is gorgeous when it is your concealed hands – early or late – end up getting results. Soon after, out 37th and short of the money.
———
If you are like me, you’ve followed and grown more and more disgusted by the Absolute and now Ultimate Bet scandal. I’ve quit playing the site but still wonder if that’s the best choice for my lower limit play. Let’s face it. It be silly to target most of us. The whipsawing in my mind is that we U.S. Players have such limited options. Losing those would be as unsatisfactory as rewarding them. Hopefully, the Grand Chief will see that his ownership/relationship is part of the problem. When that happens he could sell to a legitimate and more transparent ownership. That’d benefit all.
Pokerworks.com
Deutsches Poker
Poker Français
Póquer en español
Poker in Italiano
Magyar Póker
Hrvatski Poker
Dutch Poker
Brasileiro Poker
July 24th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Ken,
I think there is a simpler way to speak about this, and that is the old poker adage to play opposite what the rest of the table is doing, period. Since the low limit h/l games tend to be loose-aggressive, tight passive figures to be profitable. I almost never raise on third street at a table where five will see the next card anyway, however, I will be much more aggressive early on a tighter table (and yes, they do sometimes happen even in 1-2 land).
Following Brunson’s advice, I will often save raises for 5th and beyond, thereby taking advantage of the higher bet, and the lesser probability that my made hand will be beaten.
I disagree with you, however, on the value of the low hand to start. While I won’t play three cards with one-way low potential (8-5-2, e.g are just begging to be killed.), and take notes on players who do, the low str8 and flush draws are still the most profitable starting hands, and of course turn into those wonderful hidden boats that scoop with impunity.
In HORSE, I still look to play opposite to the table, forcing myself out of my own “natural” style to do it. H does tend to be a lottery (more variance for me than the other four put together), but occasionally the table is tight there as well. O is the most interesting to me these days, as I’m finally learning how to get away from middling hands and push strong ones properly, at least at low limits. But here, too, what the table, and especially the individuals are doing completely dictates my play. Even at 1-2, there are people who only come in with A-2 (unless in the blind), and then there are the K-10-8-3 four different suits people who will play every single hand. There is simply no magical “one style” that will beat the game, but if we play opposite the majority, I think it will work out just fine. At any rate, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Nothing there to disagree with but a tendency toward the more passive early and trying to punish only late is a good starting position. How the table plays is always going to alter that.
As for Doyle’s view, I think that might work better at his limits. Here, where you can’t drive em off and you see 5-6 playing. You are in a value situation with really strong hands.