Small stakes cash game = Worthless

B

bredaman7

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Total posts
48
Chips
0
Hey pokerzzz,
I wanna discuss about poker, in terms of stakes. After years playing, I figure out that small stakes cash game is not worth to be played nowadays. It's just waste ur time, energy, and at the end you end up with small profit, or the worst case, loss. I feel the gap between the playing style of small stakes table and middle/high one. At higher stakes, seems like more simple to play, everyone (mostly) play tight, so lower chance to limped in with 72o, 68o, or 35o. But in lower stakes, the hand range can be very huge. Although post flop play is more difficult in higher stakes, but still, because poker also depends on luck, which is unbeatable creature in gambling, anything can happen. In my opinion, playing higher stakes sometimes is easier.
 
zarzar78

zarzar78

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Total posts
467
Chips
0
I agree with you , playing small stakes is a waste of time, cause your winnings are probably eaten all or more than 50% by the rake taken by the room, it's like you are working and the taxes on your salary is more than 50%.
In a very loose/passive game you can make some money but the rake is already huge ....
Playing high limit where the ratio rake/pot is less important compairing with small limits, and when you are a winning player you should have a better profit ratio.

Playing more and more hands and you can beat the vector Luck and variance , but you have to respect the BRM, so here it's just about your playing style and your decisions
 
Mase31683

Mase31683

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Total posts
1,474
Awards
1
Chips
1
Yup, way easier at SSNL/MSNL. You should see how easy $5knl is, that's where the money's at.

Seriously though, if you're not beating uNL strongly and consistently you have major leaks in your game. Moving up to a table with a stronger average villain range and better thinking is highly unlikely to help your winrate.
 
fubarcdn

fubarcdn

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Total posts
2,443
Chips
0
This is true if the reason that you are playing is to try to make money.
If the same 9 people play small stakes poker online within an hour the rake will exceed the combined total of all the buyins put together. Do the math.
On the other hand if you are playing because it is your hobby or form of recreation then it is fine.
 
R

RamdeeBen

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Total posts
7,745
Chips
0
Hey pokerzzz,
I wanna discuss about poker, in terms of stakes. After years playing, I figure out that small stakes cash game is not worth to be played nowadays. It's just waste ur time, energy, and at the end you end up with small profit, or the worst case, loss. I feel the gap between the playing style of small stakes table and middle/high one. At higher stakes, seems like more simple to play, everyone (mostly) play tight, so lower chance to limped in with 72o, 68o, or 35o. But in lower stakes, the hand range can be very huge. Although post flop play is more difficult in higher stakes, but still, because poker also depends on luck, which is unbeatable creature in gambling, anything can happen. In my opinion, playing higher stakes sometimes is easier.


If you only end up a small winner or lose then you clearly have leaks in your game and should be still playing those limits.

The play isn't more simple at high stakes. If you seriously believe this, then why not just play the high stakes and not play the low stakes? I mean if you're that confident surely you would do whatever it takes in your power to get the roll to play the games rather than stuck playing the micros? I mean I certainly would. Why would you make a thread about it? Just go get that money man, crush those high stakes and never look back.


Seriously though, know what you're saying. You can't beat the micros, because people are so bad but seem to think people who play higher respect your raises play a better solid game so you can beat those limits. Do you realise how stupid saying that is?

Without causing offence, you simply are by the sounds of it a losing player and frustration of losing at micros because people play a wide range of hands is irritating you because you feel you deserve to win but aren't. News though, you don't deserve to win any hand, nor are you entitled to every pot you vs anyone until all cards are dealt even if you feel that player is doing lots of things wrong. Do yourself a favour, stick the micro limits until you can beat them. Learn to beat them if you're serious enough about the game, study more.

If you can't be the lowest limits then it's impossible you can beat anything higher over decent sample sizes, thats's just the fact. Like I say though, if you're still adamant you can play higher and win and it's easier, just play those limits? I don't understand the thread if that's the case.
 
Last edited:
B

bredaman7

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Total posts
48
Chips
0
If you only end up a small winner or lose then you clearly have leaks in your game and should be still playing those limits.

The play isn't more simple at high stakes. If you seriously believe this, then why not just play the high stakes and not play the low stakes? I mean if you're that confident surely you would do whatever it takes in your power to get the roll to play the games rather than stuck playing the micros? I mean I certainly would. Why would you make a thread about it? Just go get that money man, crush those high stakes and never look back.


Seriously though, know what you're saying. You can't beat the micros, because people are so bad but seem to think people who play higher respect your raises play a better solid game so you can beat those limits. Do you realise how stupid saying that is?

Without causing offence, you simply are by the sounds of it a losing player and frustration of losing at micros because people play a wide range of hands is irritating you because you feel you deserve to win but aren't. News though, you don't deserve to win any hand, nor are you entitled to every pot you vs anyone until all cards are dealt even if you feel that player is doing lots of things wrong. Do yourself a favour, stick the micro limits until you can beat them. If you can't be the lowest limits there is zero chance you can beat anything higher over decent sample sizes, fact.
"If you can't be the lowest limits there is zero chance you can beat anything higher over decent sample sizes, fact".

Do you realize your "fact" statement is invalid because:
1. Playing style in lower stakes and high stakes is way different (Have u tried mid and high one? if yes, you know I am not lying).
2. the reason people play, in lower stakes, so much players with "nothing to lose" mindset.
3. Billionaires can win and beat the high stakes table although they never tried the small stakes.
So What I wanna say is, if you have decent money to start at medium stake, go for it, it is better to start from mid rather than low/micro. I do not need to proof I can beat low/micro stakes, because that stakes are full of shit. Open your mind, fellas.

Ciao
 
MrPokerVerse

MrPokerVerse

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Total posts
2,825
Awards
2
Chips
57
Sounds to me with way you described the stakes it would be the most profitable per BB. Personally, there are not that much difference between the type of players and stakes (micro - middle). Seen tight microstakes table and loose middle stakes.

Lot of players have built nice BR from those types of tables. If your comfort level is suited for middle/higher and your profiting, sounds like your at right place.
 
R

RamdeeBen

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Total posts
7,745
Chips
0
"If you can't be the lowest limits there is zero chance you can beat anything higher over decent sample sizes, fact".

Do you realize your "fact" statement is invalid because:
1. Playing style in lower stakes and high stakes is way different (Have u tried mid and high one? if yes, you know I am not lying).
2. the reason people play, in lower stakes, so much players with "nothing to lose" mindset.
3. Billionaires can win and beat the high stakes table although they never tried the small stakes.
So What I wanna say is, if you have decent money to start at medium stake, go for it, it is better to start from mid rather than low/micro. I do not need to proof I can beat low/micro stakes, because that stakes are full of shit. Open your mind, fellas.

Ciao

It's a fact plain and simple because if you can't beat worse players than it's obviously ridiculously to assume you can beat the better than worse players and the good players.

1: Yes I've played the smallest stakes and played upto 100nl. The play is very different, there is less spew at the higher limit and people are much better. They won't pay you off as often and at the smallest stakes you can literally guarantee getting paid of nearly always.

2:Yes exactly. If you are up against players who have that mindset how can it not be possible to crush them? If I can play vs someone for example wanting to bluff all the time or just call with bottom pair, or their gut shot and call down with 20% equity all day long how can you not just crush these people?

3:Which billionaires play and beat high stakes? They don't play lower of course because they don't need to. Also what makes you think that business men aren't talented players the ones who beat the games? I can't think of any who beat the games by the way..

No one is asking you for proof to beat micro stakes but your logic is flawed. Basically, for example you could get a top grinder from high stakes to play lowest limits and absolutely destroy the bad players. If they played higher their win rates would be no where near as high. So if a high stakes grinder wins at 20bb/100 at the smallest stakes and can only win at 2bb/100 at the higher stakes, would does this tell you? It tells me higher stakes are obviously tougher lol.

That said, I have to ask..why not get a loan or save money and play midstakes and crush? If I could be sure I could beat mid/high stakes I to wouldn't waste my time at the smallest stakes I'd get backed for mid/high stakes or if I couldn't I'd get a loan to just play there and print money.



All I have to say is; work on your game a LOT if you struggle at the smallest stakes because I'd bet a decent amount of money that you couldn't beat the mid/high stakes if you struggle at the micros.
 
B

biff22

Rising Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Total posts
16
Chips
0
Interesting Debate

Had not given much thought to rake etc in micro game. I am trying to build a bankroll so can move up to lower limits. Think I need to be winner here before bigger games.:D
 
J

JamaicanKid

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
May 25, 2013
Total posts
515
Awards
1
Chips
0
I agree that micro players are generally calling stations but there are tight and loose players at every limit............ I tend to think that the basic fundamentals should be applied the same at all level = play solid poker, play the hand how its is suppose to be played regardless of the limit.
 
PokerFunKid

PokerFunKid

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Total posts
5,131
Chips
0
I agree, even if you are multi tabling them. I rather play 2$ buy in MTT's with a huge field then playing 2$ max buy in cash games. But i don't like cash games anyways :D
 
theRaven68

theRaven68

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Total posts
2,336
Awards
2
Chips
1
i agree that micro stakes are not profitable, but they are good for the beginners
 
TeUnit

TeUnit

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Total posts
4,734
Awards
14
Chips
77
i think the "higher" rake is the only real issue, usually the smaller the fish the easier they are to eat
 
starting_at_the_bottom

starting_at_the_bottom

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Total posts
2,665
Awards
1
Chips
7
Rather than rip into this post, I will keep it short.

If you cant beat bad poker players, you will not beat good poker players.

Really is that simple.

And if you cant beat the micros, it is because you are not good enough at poker yet, again, very simple.
 
S

Sohmurr

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Total posts
197
Chips
0
I disagree with the characterization of micro games as worthless, but he does have a point; the point is just getting buried by the "you sound like a fish" accusations. The point is "why play micro limits if you don't have to." Even good players who are not trying to "make it big" will eventually advance in limits, if for no other reason than to challenge themselves. So, if you have the bankroll to play the 50, 100, or higher NL games, why not do it? There are plenty of resources to facilitate becoming a better player without having to start at the penny tables.
 
micalupagoo

micalupagoo

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Total posts
7,476
Awards
2
Chips
141
^^^^this (edit starting at bottoms post)
and like ramdeebam also said above

chances are you would be crushed worse at higher limits than lower ones

Id much rather play the fishy calling stations

and high stake players dont play 72/68??
doyle brunson winning 2world series with T2 makes him a donk???

you're either not as good as you think you are, or its rigged,
but rigged talk is only by players who cant beat micros lol

stick around and learn how to improve your game
 
B

bredaman7

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Total posts
48
Chips
0
funny to see how ignorant some poker players are. When someone discuss something, they will end up saying like "i think you are losing player, improve your game". Do they forget that poker is still gambling? they think poker is karate when u are good then u are unbeatable, if u cant beat weak opponent you are not good. gosh, i think 70 percent poker players are in denial. open ur mind, discuss the game, not whether im good or bad, losing or winning.
 
micalupagoo

micalupagoo

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Total posts
7,476
Awards
2
Chips
141
funny to see how ignorant some poker players are. When someone discuss something, they will end up saying like "i think you are losing player, improve your game". Do they forget that poker is still gambling? they think poker is karate when u are good then u are unbeatable, if u cant beat weak opponent you are not good. gosh, i think 70 percent poker players are in denial. open ur mind, discuss the game, not whether im good or bad, losing or winning.

well what is it you were looking for with this post?
ok theres bad players at low limits that play trash hands
but you say thats bad and hard to beat
but you think you'd do much better at high limits because they play a tight solid game and wont donk you with 68o
so why are you not crushing high stakes?

and no poker is not just gambling, there is a skill level that always beats luck in the long run, over a large sample size, at any limit

you want to discuss the game post some hand histories or something that would be more insightful than low stakes not worth it, lol
many many players profit at the low limit and slowly improve their game to move up limits
so as stated by more than just me
IF YOU CANT CRUSH LOW STAKES...
 
Sh4rKi

Sh4rKi

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Total posts
25
Chips
0
bredaman7 , Yes poker is gamble but with learn, you can improve your chances of course :)
 
starting_at_the_bottom

starting_at_the_bottom

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Total posts
2,665
Awards
1
Chips
7
funny to see how ignorant some poker players are. When someone discuss something, they will end up saying like "i think you are losing player, improve your game". Do they forget that poker is still gambling? they think poker is karate when u are good then u are unbeatable, if u cant beat weak opponent you are not good. gosh, i think 70 percent poker players are in denial. open ur mind, discuss the game, not whether im good or bad, losing or winning.

I dont really understand what you are trying to put across in that post, and I am not sure what we need to discuss about "the game", nonetheless.......

The whole crux of the matter is that you are not yet good enough to win at poker on a long term basis. If you want to beat poker you need to get better. This might be through hand analysis on forums / books / pod casts / videos etc etc.

Please do not let your ego get the the way of this fact. And please do not expect us to write War and Peace in order to help you, when your problem is a very simple one.

If you do not believe us, then feel free to deposit £2000 and play some 100nl, please do report back and let us know how you get on against the better players.
 
Last edited:
R

RamdeeBen

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Total posts
7,745
Chips
0
I also have to point out,

there are many players who have played 2nl/5nl and built up their rolls. They crushed the micros and moved up. I know so many people on this forum who have done this. Not me personally because I've never really been a cash player however have done it from 10cent/50cent tournaments and run my roll up to many $1000's. I have played a lot of hands at the micro cash games and crushed for big win rates and the higher I played was always more difficult so always went back to tournaments because they are simply easier for me to beat.


In regards to the last comment and what I've been trying to tell you, starting_at_the_bottom is another example. Check his threads, he often does challenges turning £20 or something in cash games into £1000+ playing literally only 2nl/5nl so it just proves your argument for them not being beatable wrong.
 
Last edited:
akaRobbo

akaRobbo

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Total posts
656
Chips
0
It's simple, if you don't want to play micro stakes, don't play them, nobody is forcing you to.

I've only been playing poker for 9 months and have jumped to 10nl, 25nl, 7s and 15s hyper HUSNGs because I just wasn't taking the micro's seriously, I personally couldn't. It's probably cost me more irl money in doing so, but I bet I'm better than way more players who have stayed at 2/5nl for years. I'm prepared to risk/lose more money in improving quicker, because surely I can make it back quicker eventually.

It's just personal preference.
 
D

dannywho

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Total posts
32
Chips
0
Watch a few of the higher stakes games people still call with bad cards and chase draws, I saw someone at the higher mid tables showdown j4 to take a huge pot
 
R

rumpleduskin

Rising Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Total posts
16
Chips
0
I personally think that with good bankroll management and patience, you can still come out on top. Though I have noticed people anymore play with any two cards. I am having to adapt to this new way of playing, as I still wait and try and play only quality hands, which ends up me having to push all in because of blinds. Then its just a coin flip. It is a lot different then it was a few years ago.
 
S3mper

S3mper

Poker Not Checkers
Loyaler
Joined
May 13, 2013
Total posts
8,355
Awards
2
US
Chips
123
I think the hardest part about the smallest of stakes is that it's freakin' boring...

Grind for hours to go up a couple BI wohooo $8...

on top of it the optimal playing style at those stakes is tight premium hands no bluffing poker...

It's so simplistic and uncreative it is boring... At least to me..
 
Real Money Poker - Real Money Casinos Top 10 Games
Top