11

It appears that some of the subtleties of the game of poker are actually counterproductive against weak players. For example, raising is better than calling in many situations because it provides you with two different ways to win. However weak players are more likely to call indiscriminately. You can also play very tight against them and not fear that they will be wary when you go for a hand.

I would say that it is actually disadvantageous to play anything other than a, b, c poker against weak players, and thus the player who simply gauges his odds the best is the one who can maximise his profit.

I am also assuming that the set of weak players, loose players and low stakes players very much overlap.

In your experience / knowledge are my assumptions correct?

3

Many years ago I struggled to play at micro stakes level because the level of the players was so bad... Anyway, once you adapt to it, it's actually really really really easy to win at those micro stakes. If you want to play ABC poker, then go play on low stakes, just outside the micro stake region. Remember, at any level there will be fishes, and one does not bluff a fish!

4

I have always followed the Sam Farha mantra:

Against a good player I can outplay him, but against a poor player I need a hand.

Good player recognize a situation in which they may not have the best likely hood of winning a hand. It could be argued it costs them pots, but on the long run it would be a profitable situation.

Weaker players don't recognize these situations and so will play on in poor spots. This allows you to simply play hands. You would use your knowledge of their showdown hands to adapt the range of hands you would go to showdown with.

One thing I have come across following the poker explosion is weaker players brash nature. There is more willing to try bluffing and attempting clever plays. I tried to adapt to this, but soon recognized the ABC strategy works perfectly well against this in that they won't win much from you when you don't have a hand and may bluff their stack when you have a hand.

With these players I stand by my mantra: Making money is easy while being good is hard.

2

ABC poker at low stakes is the best way to play. I used to play 10-12 tables at a time on the $0.10/$0.25 tables. Really just folded until I got a strong hand (AA KK AK QQ JJ) and would raise pretty strong if in early positions or just go all in if there were limpers or raises. Maybe not so much with QQ and JJ.

You can't focus on an individual table too much because a new hand was constantly being dealt on another table. Plus it eliminated the urge to get "cute" and try to bluff a fish because I was bored which happens when you play 1 table.

2

Before you sit down at the table you should have developed a reasonable strategy against the expected player pool. This should be a balanced strategy so that you are a winning player against every player in the pool (this is of course very hard). Then you can make notes against certain players and adjust your strategy accordingly. It is wrong to assume you are never supposed to bluff in a certain spot, because of the bad player pool, since they will always call you down. This is not an assumption you can correctly make.

In short, start with your strategy, which is a balanced and correct strategy fit for the expected player pool, and adjust accordingly against certain players who you think play an exploitable strategy.

  • Good point on not never bluffing... if people are folding to your bets, and you are never bluffing, you're not bluffing enough. On the other hand, if they never fold and you are bluffing at all, you are bluffing too much. – user1934 Mar 5 '17 at 16:37
  • Exactly, essentially you are justifying a bad strategy, because your opponents are ''bad''. But this is obviously not a good excuse. Your original strategy was bad in the first place and need some tweaks. – Raymond Timmermans Mar 5 '17 at 17:54
1

In lower stakes games I tend to not try the ticks to win the hand, i've found that if I just play my cards the weaker players will just knock each other out at which point I can usually win heads up (6-9 max SNG).

Players at lower stakes tend to be quite predictable so if you're the aggressor driving the hand you've probably got the best hand, if they are wanting to raise and whatnot I tend to think twice.

1

Low stakes poker is otherwise known as "no fold 'em" poker. Most players for low stakes are "calling stations." This causes you to alter your strategy in two ways:

First, when you raise with your big hands (big pairs and AK), as you should, realize that you will raise people in rather than out. That is, you will occasionally win with hands that have a 20-30 percent chance to win ten=handed, which still beats others' "statistical" 10 percent chance, instead of chasing people out and taking the pot.

The other thing to do is to play more suited connected hands. "No fold 'em" players will often play any two suited cards. You shouldn't do this, but should play hands that are suited AND connected down to about 6-5 or 5-4, and higher suited hands that are barely connected (A-T, K-9, maybe down to Q-8, Q-9, Q-T). Essentially, you want to play a "better" version of the game everyone else is playing.

1

I definitely disagree that it is disadvantageous to play loose or "non standard" at the micro stakes. If you are an experienced middle/high stakes loose player you will have the skill to adjust your play style to the opponents. The problem is that if you don't know what you are doing you might often find yourself in bad situations and lose overall.

On the other hand playing tight will get you in trouble way less and at the micro stakes players exploit it way less (though many still try). So as always "Tight is right".

I also want to point out that the sets of loose players and weak players do not overlap. Sometimes it might feel that way because the loose players are a lot more active and you will find yourself in a hand with them more often. Here is a beginners video about the different player types you will encounter at the micro limits - http://www.pokerstrategy.com/video/11551/

As you can see the EV maximizing strategy is to vary you play style from opponent to opponent.

Lastly I want to stress that the effort minimizing strategy for profitable play is definitely playing tight and that is something you should definitely take into account since multi tabling is a must.

0

You can't get too fancy versus bad players. That is a recipe for disaster because it will go over their heads and they will just end up calling you down anyways. I have had the most success in really low stakes games on the internet and live by just sticking to an ABC style of play against them.

Essentially, other than the flop CBet, I am betting only when I have a made hand or a really good draw. I will almost never try to bluff them with nothing or get fancy raising draws and stuff like that.

Blackrain79, who is one of the biggest winners ever at the online micro stakes games, wrote a good blog post awhile ago talking about this: http://www.blackrain79.com/2015/02/why-you-need-to-be-more-patient-at.html

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.