i hate 3/6

[Guest]

NEXTLEVEL, stop poking at the soft spot in your head.......The sad thing is, you really believe what your saying. You actually believe that. I know some people dislike money, but damn. Seriously. You REALLY hate it if you seriously believe that.......Loose games where people chase is where you make money playing poker. Or, the easiest way to anyway.

[justblaze 0]

This must be the fifth time that I've seen this argument and I'll post the same thing that I do every time I see it.Here in FL there is a law making the max bet $2.  Therefore at casinos there is only $1-2 & $2-2.  People there play just for entertainment.  They are the worst players on the planet, but the game is impossible to beat.  First there is the rake which kills you at that low limit.There is a theory called "schooling" that I'm sure Sklansky and Malmuth know and agree with, it's just simple math.  The more people that stay in a pot the less chance each indivdual has to win.Heads up, yeah K-K is going to beat 7-5s almost every time.  But what about K-K v.s. 7-5s, 10-9, A-2, Q-J and K-2?  I'll bet that if you ran a simulation that the K's would win against this field about 50% of the time or less.  Or in essence someone will end up with two pair, a straight, or flush about half the time in this scenario.These games essentially become card catching contests and are the equivalent of slot machines or bingo, no matter how skilled you are.

censored EXACTLY RIGHT!!! I SHOULD HAVE PUT IT THAT WAY. RUN THE MATH HE IS RIGHT.

actually he is exactly wrong. The math has been run. Equity decreases with premium hands at a certain number of opponents, but not at 7 or 8. More like 13 or 14. The reason a 1-2 or 2-2 game is unbeatable is because of the rake. In florida, the rake is prohibitively high. There are many (including myself) with thousands of hand histories at 1-2 online who beat the game quite handily. Ill email them to you if you like.

[NEXTLEVEL 0]

NEXTLEVEL, stop poking at the soft spot in your head.......The sad thing is, you really believe what your saying. You actually believe that. I know some people dislike money, but damn. Seriously. You REALLY hate it if you seriously believe that.......Loose games where people chase is where you make money playing poker. Or, the easiest way to anyway.

I agree with that statement. Would you agree with that statement if there were 5 people calling to the river and you held pocket Kings, Queens, or just top pair on the flop?

[justblaze 0]

if they have a 200 400 game where ur at give it a shot. u prolly wont get outdrawn as much.

heh, he'll be behind before the flop.

[pockets 0]

This must be the fifth time that I've seen this argument and I'll post the same thing that I do every time I see it.Here in FL there is a law making the max bet $2.  Therefore at casinos there is only $1-2 & $2-2.  People there play just for entertainment.  They are the worst players on the planet, but the game is impossible to beat.  First there is the rake which kills you at that low limit.There is a theory called "schooling" that I'm sure Sklansky and Malmuth know and agree with, it's just simple math.  The more people that stay in a pot the less chance each indivdual has to win.Heads up, yeah K-K is going to beat 7-5s almost every time.  But what about K-K v.s. 7-5s, 10-9, A-2, Q-J and K-2?  I'll bet that if you ran a simulation that the K's would win against this field about 50% of the time or less.  Or in essence someone will end up with two pair, a straight, or flush about half the time in this scenario.These games essentially become card catching contests and are the equivalent of slot machines or bingo, no matter how skilled you are.

You do know that KK doesn't have to win 50% of the time to be profitable against 5 other opponents, right? It has to win at least 17% of the time.Which it does.And to the OP: Equity. Look it up.Though I do strongly suspect this is a joke post.

[Pupsta 0]

the best thing i can contribute to this thread is "lol"nextlevel, you couldn't possibly be more wrong about everything you've contributed in this thread.these are the games i love to play....i love when that T3o hits out on my KK, telling them nice hand, and then watching them give me the rest of their money throughout the session. ever notice that these fish generally leave the table without chips? i guess not, because you see 4 people to a flop and say "too loose, i'm outta here, gotta to find a table where it's headsup every flop with the best hand winning every time.try chess or something, or keep playing poker, because i'm sure you're the donk at the table.

[Pupsta 0]

This must be the fifth time that I've seen this argument and I'll post the same thing that I do every time I see it.Here in FL there is a law making the max bet $2.  Therefore at casinos there is only $1-2 & $2-2.  People there play just for entertainment.  They are the worst players on the planet, but the game is impossible to beat.  First there is the rake which kills you at that low limit.There is a theory called "schooling" that I'm sure Sklansky and Malmuth know and agree with, it's just simple math.  The more people that stay in a pot the less chance each indivdual has to win.Heads up, yeah K-K is going to beat 7-5s almost every time.  But what about K-K v.s. 7-5s, 10-9, A-2, Q-J and K-2?  I'll bet that if you ran a simulation that the K's would win against this field about 50% of the time or less.  Or in essence someone will end up with two pair, a straight, or flush about half the time in this scenario.These games essentially become card catching contests and are the equivalent of slot machines or bingo, no matter how skilled you are.

You do know that KK doesn't have to win 50% of the time to be profitable against 5 other opponents, right? It has to win at least 17% of the time.Which it does.And to the OP: Equity. Look it up.Though I do strongly suspect this is a joke post.

i don't think the op is joking, and i don't think that nextlevel is joking. these people honestly believe that the "good players" are more easily beaten than the fish, because they think that you can push them off of their bottom pair or their draw.

[Guest]

NEXTLEVEL, stop poking at the soft spot in your head.......The sad thing is, you really believe what your saying. You actually believe that. I know some people dislike money, but damn. Seriously. You REALLY hate it if you seriously believe that.......Loose games where people chase is where you make money playing poker. Or, the easiest way to anyway.

I agree with that statement. Would you agree with that statement if there were 5 people calling to the river and you held pocket Kings, Queens, or just top pair on the flop?

If you seriously have to ask that question there is nothing I can say to you thats going to make this ok for you........Seriously, stick to rummy or something

[Sushiman 0]

This is one of the dumbest posts on limit I have ever read. To say low limit is unbeatable is ridiculous, either online or in casinos. If good players can't make money because of all the chasers, and it's statistically impossible for the bad players/chasers to be profitable in the long run.....wow where does the money go? There are plenty of people making money at 2/4 and 3/6, so don't say they are unbeatable because you got sucked out on a couple of times.The fact that you think you need to win 50% of your pots with hands like AA and KK to be profitable shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Guest]

This is one of the dumbest posts on limit I have ever read.

Yeah, it is. If only it involved two pair beating trips or open folding, it would be the dumbest post ever........

[RMac 0]

This must be the fifth time that I've seen this argument and I'll post the same thing that I do every time I see it.Here in FL there is a law making the max bet $2.  Therefore at casinos there is only $1-2 & $2-2.  People there play just for entertainment.  They are the worst players on the planet, but the game is impossible to beat.  First there is the rake which kills you at that low limit.There is a theory called "schooling" that I'm sure Sklansky and Malmuth know and agree with, it's just simple math.  The more people that stay in a pot the less chance each indivdual has to win.Heads up, yeah K-K is going to beat 7-5s almost every time.  But what about K-K v.s. 7-5s, 10-9, A-2, Q-J and K-2?  I'll bet that if you ran a simulation that the K's would win against this field about 50% of the time or less.  Or in essence someone will end up with two pair, a straight, or flush about half the time in this scenario.These games essentially become card catching contests and are the equivalent of slot machines or bingo, no matter how skilled you are.

you dont understand the concept of schooling. Your explanation doesnt take into account the increased size of the pots you will win. The theory is not mathematically proven, and has never been recognized by sklansky (not that he is the be-all and end-all of poker). The game you describe would be beatable without a rake. Did you know 75s will beat KK almost 20% of the time, heads-up?

I'll keep an open mind on this as I'm no expert in poker theory.I do concede that I forgot to take the size of the pot into consideration, but (and I am clearly showing my newb status here) why then is it correct to try and isolate/limit the field pre-flop in limit and NL with premium hands? Why not let everyone call, if you are so intent on playing calling stations? Why even raise pre-flop at all except in early position to build a pot?I know there's something that I don't grasp here, and I have a feeling that you're right but please explain this to me.

[RMac 0]

Or to put my above post in a simpler way....I am a donk........please discuss why.

[biggator 0]

if you are playing in the florida 1/2 or 2/2 games, you can never raise to limit the field, it doesn't work. I've played 8 hour sessions with every single hand going to a showdown, not just the hands I was in but every hand.you raise to build the pot, and to make the stupid draws pay.also i think the rake in these games is very beatable for a tight player, you dont take down that many pots, but when you do they are huge (30-40BB). so the rake doesn't hurt as bad.

[suckerfish 0]

This is all pretty basic stuff. Some starting hands have a better +EV against fewer callers than others. AA is a wonderful example. Some starting hands actually have a better +EV against larger fields and lose EV in heads up or 3 way action, like 89 suited. Ofcourse the flop will really determine your best course of action from there on out. If you've got AA against 6 callers with an uncoordinated flop then your EV is still good, keep raising and be leary when you get resistance but know that you did the right thing.3/6 is beatable (I play 4/8 but hang around 3/6 when waiting for a seat). I had a guy a couple of nights ago get pissed at me for beating him 3 times because I started out with the best hand and clobbered him all the way to the river. He got angry, told me I play to tight, need to loosen up, etc. but that's the way I gotta play in these low limit games. I saw a kid who burned through $160 in 2 hours just trying to catch something on the flop but none of his premium hands held up. He finally went all in pre-flop with QQ, got 4 callers and won. He won another good pot with good cards and now had $230 in front of him. That's the game, you pick your spots and go for it.

[Jeff 0]

Spent the night a the casino and played 3/6 for the firtst time with 150.I won a total of 3 hands in 6 hrs. Lost a lot of big hands to censored hands.  KK i raises lady calls with A2 flop 7610 bet she call turn is a AA9s I late postion I raise 2 callers and one has 94 flop is 994QQ lost to k4I thought is was playing solid poker all night.Playing tight.I havent had a winning session for a 10 weeks. and its starting to kill me. Dont no what to do. Any advice?Please dont flame!

If Daniel Negreanu sat down at 3/6 table and no one knew who he was, he could not beat the game. Players in 3/6 call with anything before the flop and WILL look for the runner runner draws and call three bets with bottom pair hopefully trying to hit two pair or trips. I suggest, if you have 150 dollars to sit down with, to play 1/2 no limit. You can feel out the table and raise enought that the table will need a descent hand to call you with. Obviously in no limit you can protect your hands in which you would not be able to do in 3/6. If you want to get back to limit eventually I would suggest nothing lower than 5/10. And that game can even get silly at times.

im waiting for the sw at the end of this......

If you are than your confused about low limit hold'em. Very confused.

Says the person that says low limit holdem is not beatable since "Players in 3/6 call with anything before the flop and WILL look for the runner runner draws and call three bets with bottom pair hopefully trying to hit two pair or trips."That right there is the reason it is easily beatable. Get a clue.

Another confused person. When there 4 people calling all the way down the river you will see 5 3 of clubs hit there flush, j4 with there bottom pair on the flop hit there jack on the river. If the players in that game would fold more and there would not always be 5 people calling to the river than it would be beatable. This game is a draw game. Who can draw to the best hand.

you're right. start playing 400-800 because it is very beatable.

[Suited_Up 2]

This must be the fifth time that I've seen this argument and I'll post the same thing that I do every time I see it.Here in FL there is a law making the max bet $2.  Therefore at casinos there is only $1-2 & $2-2.  People there play just for entertainment.  They are the worst players on the planet, but the game is impossible to beat.  First there is the rake which kills you at that low limit.There is a theory called "schooling" that I'm sure Sklansky and Malmuth know and agree with, it's just simple math.  The more people that stay in a pot the less chance each indivdual has to win.Heads up, yeah K-K is going to beat 7-5s almost every time.  But what about K-K v.s. 7-5s, 10-9, A-2, Q-J and K-2?  I'll bet that if you ran a simulation that the K's would win against this field about 50% of the time or less.  Or in essence someone will end up with two pair, a straight, or flush about half the time in this scenario.These games essentially become card catching contests and are the equivalent of slot machines or bingo, no matter how skilled you are.

you dont understand the concept of schooling. Your explanation doesnt take into account the increased size of the pots you will win. The theory is not mathematically proven, and has never been recognized by sklansky (not that he is the be-all and end-all of poker). The game you describe would be beatable without a rake. Did you know 75s will beat KK almost 20% of the time, heads-up?

I'll keep an open mind on this as I'm no expert in poker theory.I do concede that I forgot to take the size of the pot into consideration, but (and I am clearly showing my newb status here) why then is it correct to try and isolate/limit the field pre-flop in limit and NL with premium hands? Why not let everyone call, if you are so intent on playing calling stations? Why even raise pre-flop at all except in early position to build a pot?I know there's something that I don't grasp here, and I have a feeling that you're right but please explain this to me.

You raise to isolate with AA because against 1 hand, it wins 80% of the time. Which is good, especially in NL when your implied odds are huge.Against 5 hands, it doesn't win THAT much... but it still wins more than any other hand they could have. So you have the highest equity out of anybody else in the hand, so you are raising to do either one. If you get them to fold, your equity goes up... if they call, the pot is bigger in a hand that you will win more than anyone else.

[Jeff 0]

the best thing i can contribute to this thread is "lol"nextlevel, you couldn't possibly be more wrong about everything you've contributed in this thread.

[Spademan 94]

I'll keep an open mind on this as I'm no expert in poker theory.I do concede that I forgot to take the size of the pot into consideration, but (and I am clearly showing my newb status here) why then is it correct to try and isolate/limit the field pre-flop in limit and NL with premium hands?  Why not let everyone call, if you are so intent on playing calling stations?  Why even raise pre-flop at all except in early position to build a pot?I know there's something that I don't grasp here, and I have a feeling that you're right but please explain this to me.

You want to limit the field to give your hand a better chance of holding up.There is less variance involved.Though the variance is greater if you're playing loose/weak players all the time, that doesn't make it unprofitable for solid players.

[RMac 0]

I'll keep an open mind on this as I'm no expert in poker theory.I do concede that I forgot to take the size of the pot into consideration, but (and I am clearly showing my newb status here) why then is it correct to try and isolate/limit the field pre-flop in limit and NL with premium hands?  Why not let everyone call, if you are so intent on playing calling stations?  Why even raise pre-flop at all except in early position to build a pot?I know there's something that I don't grasp here, and I have a feeling that you're right but please explain this to me.

You want to limit the field to give your hand a better chance of holding up.There is less variance involved.Though the variance is greater if you're playing loose/weak players all the time, that doesn't make it unprofitable for solid players.

Gotcha....sortaSo you should play extra tight in these loose games and build a pot with your big hands?Or loosen up your starting hand requirements and try to see cheap flops with suited connectors?Or a mix?

[WorkYou 0]

if u are lossing and u feel like u are lossing because u are playing with players that are better then u then play lower stakes. its not fun lossing.10 lossing sesssions in a row is not good. u are doing something wrong.dont overplay ur cards.play solid poker. keep focused. only play if u actually want to play. play when u want to play. u will be more focused and make the right plays more often.

[LuckyMcCatcher 0]

Lets not argue with someone who obviously will not give up his mistaken belief. But for the record I beat the 2/4 and 3/6 GOlden Palace games for over 4k last month playing tight aggressive. Im beating it for 1,500 this month and consider myself to be running bad in those games. 1) When you have the best hand at the end expect to be paid off or even raised in at least two spots. THis will never happen in a higher limit game. If you gain 4 or 5 bb on later streets than you would gain in a bigger limit game and lose only one or two bb when you get sucked out on, (you should probably be losing less because fish make it obvious when they suck out) then how can it not be profitable. Super profitable.2) Playing the tight weak style that I see players of the OP's mindset using will get demolished at a higher limit game. You will go insane from all the bad beats you will take. You will never know where you are in a hand and people will push you around. When you do have a hand you will be sucked out on more or be put to tough decisions, because these players will be looking to take shots at you.3) BTW, players like yourself who claim that limit is for fish and that NL kills fish are laughed at by real poker players. Real players observe this attitude and try to put you on tilt so you will give thm your money.4) My advice stay away from 3/6 until you learn to beat it. Moving up will destroy your roll and your confidence.

[Naismith 0]

I live in Florida and play the crappy 2 dollar game at the dog track. The bet is 2 bucks on every street. The game is not only beatable, it's disgustingly profitable. All you have to do is tighten up, wait to hit and then jam the pot. Yeah, the suckouts can be frustrating, but everytime you scoop a 40 blind pot, it makes up for it. :)In fact, if I ever get through SSHE, I'd imagine it will be even easier.Oh, and don't even get me started on the Omaha 8 games. I'm horrible at the game and I cringe at the way they play. They'll jam pots on a 10-high flush draw with a paired board. God forbid you actually run hot at O8, you might own the building by the time you leave.And I'm not a math expert, but I'll take winning 50% of the time playing with seven people in to the river every single hand I play!Peace,Jay

[mbreon 0]

Thank you FCPers for coming to the rescue....nextlevel's logic was making my head spin. Or maybe it was the ganja....

[Dixie Wrecked 0]

If you cant beat 3/6 you shouldnt be playing any higher than 5/10 unless you want to lose money.read SSHE published in 2004 and get a clue NEXTLEVEL

[Chiggleslap 0]

Spent the night a the casino and played 3/6 for the firtst time with 150.I won a total of 3 hands in 6 hrs. Lost a lot of big hands to censored hands. KK i raises lady calls with A2 flop 7610 bet she call turn is a AA9s I late postion I raise 2 callers and one has 94 flop is 994QQ lost to k4I thought is was playing solid poker all night.Playing tight.I havent had a winning session for a 10 weeks. and its starting to kill me. Dont no what to do. Any advice?Please dont flame!

If Daniel Negreanu sat down at 3/6 table and no one knew who he was, he could not beat the game. Players in 3/6 call with anything before the flop and WILL look for the runner runner draws and call three bets with bottom pair hopefully trying to hit two pair or trips. I suggest, if you have 150 dollars to sit down with, to play 1/2 no limit. You can feel out the table and raise enought that the table will need a descent hand to call you with. Obviously in no limit you can protect your hands in which you would not be able to do in 3/6. If you want to get back to limit eventually I would suggest nothing lower than 5/10. And that game can even get silly at times.

:shock: ???????????????????????