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.
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.
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.