| This is a discussion on Micro-Cash Games within the online poker forums, in the Learning Poker section; Aim to have a constant +bb/100 average? Or aim to build a stack size pot and double up.. what are your strategies for cash games? ... |
| | ||||||
![]() |
| |
|
#1 | ||||
| ||||
| Micro-Cash Games Aim to have a constant +bb/100 average? Or aim to build a stack size pot and double up.. what are your strategies for cash games? regs and newbies welcome to post. |
| Play Texas Hold'em Online Poker | Micro-Cash Games | |
|
|
|
#3 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
and I still havent got a roll yet, atm I'm a uni student, and I'm waiting on my grant.. they owe me a grand at the moment and I get more in january.. so I'm waiting for that to actually start my roll. I'm thinking FR, easier to multitable and fish at these levels have no concept of position so it should be easier to take their money in the long run. Still planning on working on tightening up, will probably be my biggest leak haha. |
|
#5 | ||||
| ||||
| Poker is constant flux, don't worry about what to do in what position and look at a statistical chart. Measure your villains, look at their stacks, find your spots. Got a weak loose player calling in early position and a reg raising in MP, drop the hammer in CO IF you have reads on their play. Observe, observe, observe; constant evaluating villains, ask yourself questions and base play on results of those questions. |
|
#6 | ||||
| ||||
| re: Micro-Cash Games poker When first starting out in the micros with less than 100,000 hands to go by, don't aim for either. Just aim for making the right decision in every hand, improving your game, and forget about the monetary results. If you focus on your winrate too much at the beginning (or ever, really), you will probably end up like this guy: http://www.cardschat.com/showpost1745490-post1996.html |
|
#7 | ||||
| ||||
| If you're playing at the lowest levels, don't otherthink and overplay. Straight forward ABC works fine. Don't go crazy with a pair of aces and 6 kicker convincing yourself that the other guy "must" be just trying to push you around. Keep the pot small with mediocre hands and play aggressively when you have a strong hand. Patience is very important in poker. All it takes to double up is one hand. And don't worry about what percentage you should be playing and cbetting and all of that stuff. Play tight aggressive. As you get more experience, you can start adjusting to opponents. But in the beginning, if there is an aggro guy who rarely ever folds on your immediate left, switch tables. Plenty of passive players around to exploit. |
|
#8 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Overbets vs calling stations? Btw, what are the typical stats of a calling station? I'm going to try out PT3 when I start and maybe buy a HUD when I'm high enough in limits.. Quote:
Quote:
Yeah thats another problem of mine, game selection. Do I aim to get the loose passive tables that have like 5000 people to every flop, or the tight passive tables where I can just abuse nits blinds. |
|
#9 | ||||||
| ||||||
| Quote:
The reason why I linked you there was because fx concerned himself too much over his winrate, imo. Given typical variance, even over a million hands or so your winrate could fluctuate a fair amount (+/- 3bb/100) with no actual reflection on your true ability. http://www.evplusplus.com/poker_tool...nce_simulator/ Getting back to your questions: Quote:
Quote:
The PT3 60-day trial is a very good way to start. When I had a bankroll of $120 or so I made a move from 2nl to 5nl and started my PT3 trial period. 60 days later, my trial ran out and I was playing 10nl on a $500 bankroll. It was easy to purchase the micro version of PT3 at that point and still be plenty rolled for the levels I was at. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#10 | ||||
| ||||
| [quote] Well, fx was a good guy who I think had too much going on outside of poker to be able to keep his poker play objective. I wouldn't mock others until you've experienced the wrong end of a 20 buy-in swing, as unless you've experienced it you really don't know how you would react. Most don't do so well with it. The reason why I linked you there was because fx concerned himself too much over his winrate, imo. Given typical variance, even over a million hands or so your winrate could fluctuate a fair amount (+/- 3bb/100) with no actual reflection on your true ability. http://www.evplusplus.com/poker_tool...nce_simulator/ Quote: Quote:
|
|
#11 | ||||
| ||||
| [quote=Campbell92;1824797] Quote:
This is part of what drove fx crazy -- the fact that his winrate was a meandering 1-2bb/100, and where he had heard that to be a "good" player was to have a winrate of 5+bb/100. He was measuring his self-worth and his poker play solely by his winrate. Especially when talking about a gap of only 3bb/100 or so, it's silly to think that winrate is only based on skill and that luck has no influence on it. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't a very select few people out there who could probably slaughter the game and have a consistent 20bb+/100 winrate. I know these people do exist, and the style they play and the careful selection of their tables helps eliminate some of the variance that most people experience. The thing about winrate is that it is not results-independent. I know everyone sensible about poker always preaches to not focus on monetary results. Well, how can you do that if you hold your winrate as the sum of all your poker play? Perhaps if you calculated a Sklansky bucks winrate -- now that would be something to go by. Since I know of no automated way to do it, the best way to evaluate your poker play is to go through it hand by hand. This is also impossible, so the next best thing is to go through some select hands you remember having doubts about and figuring out if you made the right play or not. If you go on 2p2 or other forums like that, there will be people flexing their e-peen all over the place, saying look at this winrate, blah blah blah. I'll just tell you now that if you can avoid that trap and just focus on playing poker with a goal to keep bettering yourself, you will probably have a much better time than if you are constantly comparing yourself against others using a statistic that has a good amount of luck built into its calculation. Quote:
As for hands... there is never enough to be a decent sample. Up and downswings can easily last tens of thousands of hands. I think around 40-50,000 hands you can sort of get a picture, or at least have enough hands to look through and analyze things you are doing right and wrong. It's probably not until you are ready to move up to the next level that you get a clear idea of where you really stood with your current level. |
|
#12 | ||||
| ||||
| re: Micro-Cash Games poker Quote:
Beware if the villain calls two barrels from you then suddenly goes all in on the river. Usually that's a slowplayed monster at the micros. Loose tables are the easiest to win since you can control the size the pot so you can win big when you have it and lose little when you lose. |
|
#13 | ||||
| ||||
| Don't concern yourself with win rate until you have enough hands under your belt to have a reasonable idea of what your rate actually is. How many this takes can vary with your style, your opponents' styles, FR vs 6max, etc. as well as the normal swings of running good and bad. So just try to make the best decisions you can while all of these regress toward the mean. And I'll second what was said about playing ABC. There's no need to get fancy. Micro players typically have an "I play my cards" mentality. It is possible to outplay them quite often. However, you tend to lose more when you try and it doesn't work than you win when it does work, so in terms of profitability, the breakeven is above half the time, possibly well above. It's not easy to achieve this, especially as a relative beginner. As for loose vs passive tables, loose ones are more profitable if you're an above-average player, but you can also lose more if you're not. Passive tables tend to be easier to play, and while they can be less profitable, can also be lower variance. Ideally, you should aim to be capable of beating both, but starting where you feel less discomfort is probably a good idea. |
|
#14 | ||||
| ||||
| Was just about to write before you commented AJ, sorry I took so long (uni book review - Ace on the river ) Mr Monkey, that's a good rule actually, I'm deffo gonna stick to that when I start. At what level do I NEED a HUD though? And can you explain sklanksy bucks? I've heard of it before but honestly I never researched it. Is it comparable to Galfonds G-bucks? And last question, should I value bet a lot bigger at micros? Since they shouldn't really adjust.. would it be +ev? or is the overbet only ever used for polarising. |
|
#15 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
BUT having said that, I got one when I was playing 2NL (now I'm playing 5NL) and it's really useful and helped me improve a lot. It's only a one off $45 for the microstakes version, which is good up to and including 25NL. Well worth it imo. |
|
#16 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
I had to look into G-Bucks, but yes, Sklansky Bucks are the basis for the concept of G-Bucks. G-Bucks takes Sklansky Bucks a bit further and applies it to hand ranges rather than just the actual hands turned over. G-Bucks is a great concept, and reviewing your hands this way will certainly make you a better player. For anyone interested: http://www.bluffmagazine.com/magazine/'G-Bucks'-Conceptualizing-Money-Matters.-Phil-Galfond-985.htm I don't think there are specific rules for value betting more or less -- you need to figure out what works against specific opponents and maximize what you can get from them. That said, in general at the micros and against a complete unknown you can tend to assume they are bad more often than not and will be more willing to stay in a hand with increasingly bad odds to do so. So yes, you need to still analyze your opponents when you can, but in general you can get more value from large value bets and overbets in the micros. |
|
#17 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
Number of Posts: 17
Number of Authors: 8