Is micro stakes cash game beatable? need advice.

[AcesUp747]

IIRC, super micros on pokerstars used to be unraked, or only raked small amounts at very large threshholds, like when full stacks went into the pot.

Anything <50nl is not beatable on most sites anymore due to rake and shortstacking scumbags. $2 an hour is a good wage in eastern Europe, so they learn a chart and try to lose slightly less at the tables than they earn in rakeback. Not too difficult if your end goal is a pathetic hourly like that.

 

[Blobweird123]

IIRC, super micros on Pokerstars used to be unraked, or only raked small amounts at very large threshholds, like when full stacks went into the pot.

Anything <50nl is not beatable on most sites anymore due to rake and shortstacking scumbags. $2 an hour is a good wage in eastern Europe, so they learn a chart and try to lose slightly less at the tables than they earn in rakeback. Not too difficult if your end goal is a pathetic hourly like that.

I know this thread is old, but don't listen to this lol. Every limit is still very beatable. For 2nl, just look in the MicroCrushers thread at Cafemans graph. All it takes is playing well. (and not listening to the above)

 

[micromachine]

Anything <50nl is not beatable on most sites anymore due to rake and shortstacking scumbags. $2 an hour is a good wage in eastern Europe, so they learn a chart and try to lose slightly less at the tables than they earn in rakeback. Not too difficult if your end goal is a pathetic hourly like that.

Absolute rubbish, the micro limits are full of fish and very easy to beat once you know what you are doing

 

[loafes]

No, the lowest stakes games with the worst players is unbeatable. All these so called "micro grinders" with winning stats are really just on like 20k hand heaters. If you want to be a profitable player you need to play with players who will mess with your blinds, float you, checkraise semibluff and who know their odds. this way you dont need to worry about your aces getting cracked, because im sure they wont be getting it in with Q2 off suit.


But seriously op its just a matter of making the right adjustmants to your game and mind set. if you have a proper bankroll for it then the microstakes are plenty beatable when you just fix your leaks and play a solid strategy

 

[Under_EV]

If you can't beat NL5 then there is practically zero chance of beating NL100.

Variance is massive at the micros, but the majority of players are so bad that you will eventually crush them as a winning player. Value bet your big hands to the maximum and be prepared to fold some decent hands too. Turn and river raises usually mean you're beaten in the micros, particularly the river raise.

 

[Cafeman]

Anything <50nl is not beatable on most sites anymore due to rake and shortstacking scumbags.

looooooool

Variance is massive at the micros

What do you mean by this?

 

[AcesUp747]

I should say that I have never played below 50nl in my life and I've been playing for a living since 2005, full time since 2008. When you factor in the rake and the amount of 20 tabling "regs" at super micros, yes I would consider that a waste of time.

What is the rake in terms of bb/100 at 5nl vs 50nl? Isn't it ridiculous like 20bb/100 effective rake on most sites at 5nl? Why bother?

 

[letderbefish]

I should say that I have never played below 50nl in my life and I've been playing for a living since 2005, full time since 2008. When you factor in the rake and the amount of 20 tabling "regs" at super micros, yes I would consider that a waste of time.

What is the rake in terms of bb/100 at 5nl vs 50nl? Isn't it ridiculous like 20bb/100 effective rake on most sites at 5nl? Why bother?

how much BR did u start with and what BR management are u doing pls ?

 

[AcesUp747]

I started with a single $50 deposit playing one table of .5/1 limit poker way back in the day. Bonuswhored and gradually increased my tables played the first year or so. Switched to NL in 2007.

Played with a 100 buyin roll from 2008-2011 on Stars. Since BF, I play with super small rolls and redeposit as needed. I've had too much money stolen from the smaller sites since BF to risk big rolls there.

 

[jimmylytle2]

I lose more to rake than to the other players on the table.
You will still find gamblers at the higher stakes. Some people do not mind losing $100 an hour, so the answer to your question is a resounding no. If you are not sure if you can win at a higher table , you never know for sure until you try. Just be sure you have the proper bankroll to relearn poker at the new higher level which is 10X the bankroll you needed for 2c/5c. And do not be afraid to go back to the lower levels if your bankroll starts running on fumes.

 

[letderbefish]

thanks for the replay,
i agree anything below nl50/nl25 is a waste of time, and the field just makes u want so smash your computer.
i tried limit holdem but just couldnt adapt to it, i think i should give sngs a try and see how that goes.

 

[Cafeman]

I should say that I have never played below 50nl in my life and I've been playing for a living since 2005, full time since 2008. When you factor in the rake and the amount of 20 tabling "regs" at super micros, yes I would consider that a waste of time.

What is the rake in terms of bb/100 at 5nl vs 50nl? Isn't it ridiculous like 20bb/100 effective rake on most sites at 5nl? Why bother?

So, you've never played the micros, but you reckon they are unbeatable? Well, I'm here to tell you they are beatable.

As for rake paid, I pay around 10bb/100 at 50NL. It's has quite a drag on my WR as you might imagine, but I am still winning over a huge sample, so what can I say.

I'm attempting to move up to 100NL atm fwiw btw.

 

[Cafeman]

i agree anything below nl50/nl25 is a waste of time, and the field just makes u want so smash your computer.

Why? Because they are bad?

And I don't agree it's a waste of time if one of your goals is to improve and move up.

 

[Cafeman]

Sorry to be such a party pooper (aside; I'm not really), but I just can't believe some of the comments in this thread are by people who have a clue.

 

[Henry Minute]

Exactly, its the equivalent to saying "our Sunday League team cant win a game, so we are going to arrange a friendly against Bayern Munich to book a victory"

That might work in certain circumstances though.

For instance if they arranged the friendly against Wolves, they stand a chance.

Oh the ignominy!

 

[AcesUp747]

Maybe I just look at the micros different from most people. I feel that micros are for learning the game, and recreational players. The russians and chinese who are 20 tabling 5nl shortstacking make me sick.

When effective rake is something like 20bb/100, and then at least half the table is scumbag ratholers, how can one profitably play them?

I mean I'm sure the players are way worse, but stakes like 100nl are barely beatable with all the scumbag rats. 1bb/100 is a very good winrate at 100nl and the effective rake is like 5bb/100.

 

[RNG]

If you cant beat micros then either you need to improve your game or you're not being discipline enough. Because its such a small amount, its hard to take it seriously. So maybe thats the problem

 

[lost2qandisa]

I think a fatal flaw we all have is AA when we are just starting out. The reality of it is, AA will hit 3 out of 10 times if it goes to the showdown. So, do the math. Let's say you push $1.00 all in on ten hands that you have AA. By the numbers, out of those ten hands, you win 3 times. So, ten all in pushes $1.00 x 10 = $10 you spent. You win 3 times! Even if two people called you on the times you won you went up $6. You got back your $1 bet three times. So, $6 + $3 = $9. But you lost $7. Net gain is only $2. The chance of you having 2 people in all the pots is not likely. So, overall a push from AA of KK preflop is not a smart move to me.

I like to get more value from them. I bet 5XBB maybe a little more if I am trying to push out some limpers that seem to call everything. Now say 5 people call. That is a lot more value in the pot, so I win more over time. I think people think just because they have AA or KK, they should push so they make as much as possible. I disagree with that. Call me crazy.

 

[loafes]

I think a fatal flaw we all have is AA when we are just starting out. The reality of it is, AA will hit 3 out of 10 times if it goes to the showdown.

Ahh don't know where you heard that. Aces will win about 8/10 times vs the next closest hand equity wise. so if you get all the money in preflop with aces 10 times in a row then your net profit is $8 ($18 total winnings- spending of $10) assuming of course that all in = $1

 

[Kymi10]

..

 

[lost2qandisa]

Starting hand odds don't lie.... if you go to showdown.... meaning all the way to the river. AA only wins 3 out of 10. That does not include hands that every person folded before or after seeing the turn or the river.

 

[BluffMeAllIn]

Starting hand odds don't lie.... if you go to showdown.... meaning all the way to the river. AA only wins 3 out of 10. That does not include hands that every person folded before or after seeing the turn or the river.

AA vs pp(not AA) in a heads up situation is 80/20 so in that case AA will win 8 out of 10 times. When you mix in more than two players it changes a lot of the probabilities, but in a heads up situation AA vs anything in the long-run is profitable. Have no idea where you get a 3/10 stat from, obviously if you have AA and get into a post-fop with 3 or 4 players there are greater odds your going to lose (ie. remember it is still just a pair afterall).

 

[DunningKruger]

About the only situation I can think of where AA wins 3 out of 10 times is if it goes to showdown (regardless of the board) against 9 random hands. That might be what this fellow is talking about. Lost, you'll never see every single player sitting a full ring table to to showdown at the same time unless you're a play chip player... and even then it's rare. AA wins much more than 3 out of 10 times in practice. That's a fact.

 

[loafes]

Even if that were the case where you were getting it in with AA vs 9 random hands, you may only win 3/10 times or there abouts but you're making 9 times your stack those times you do and only losing 1 times your stack when you lose.

 

[DunningKruger]

Yes that should go without saying, although I've seen people here talk about folding AA preflop sometimes so yeah it's not a bad idea to mention that I suppose. In any case, the % of times AA will win is going to depend on the number of players you're up against (not to mention what they're willing to get it in with).