[Closed] NL5 TJo FR

Hello Dziurgis.

I have lost my copy of the SHC at the moment, but is JT a call hand on the BU after one limper? I would think it is most likely a fold there. If it was to be played, then certainly a raise is in order to isolate the limper and get initiative. However, this is Stars low limits, where no-one ever seems to respect money, and your raise would most likely be called by both SB and BB. Then, you would be in an even bigger pot with a mediocre hand, and position just wouldn't compensate.

Bottom two pair on this flop is awkward. KJ, KQ and KT are all possible holdings for your opponents, and in any case, a naked Q is also going to call, and any Ace might stay in because they are bad players. Raising for protection is correct, you might have the best hand.

This turn card is dreadful for you. Every A or 9 has you beat, better two pairs, and he still donks. I would let it go.

ussually I do not play with such hand, but this time I saw from hud that blinds does not raise preflop ofthen so I tryed to limp in. with such a hand you can win big pot from time to time if you hit flop good. if not it is easy to let it go. and to win you need to have some "customers" that is why i limped in.

If HUD is telling you that the Blinds won't play often, then this could be a good spot for a steal raise, to isolate the early limper. If MP1 also folds, you have picked up 2.5BB. Nice result.

By limping in, you have made a multiway pot, and even after hitting 2 pair on the flop, and investing a further 5BB, you have to fold. So in the long run, limping in costs money, when you add up all the failures.

yeah, you are right, but in NL5 blinds are so small that it is not really worth stealing it. I defenatlly aggree that in higher limit it is the way to play as you described.

Well, I have to disagree with you there. 1BB is 1BB. Winrate is measured in BB/100 hands played, not $/100 hand played, so value the blinds highly, not in relation to the limit you play.

The kind of thinking you are displaying there is the reason so many bad players enter the pot at low limits. They think, it's only a few cents at this limit, it doesn't matter. But, it is Big Blinds they are wasting, and that is how we measure our wins.

Since you are looking for a winrate of about 1.5BB/100 or better to be a winning player, how do you think that is affected when you feel casual about the loss of 6BB on one hand, because "it isn't much money at this limit"? For an average player, they will have to play 300 more hands without a mistake just to make up for the loss.

How much fun is low limit grinding, that you want to make it go on longer?

I see your point. Actually in NL5 almost no one is defending blinds at all, so it can be a good spot here...

I understand that to play in lower limit than NL10 - NL25 is kind a waist of time, but I promised myself that I will stick to bankroll management very strictly this time. Of course I could deposit more money to have bankroll for bigger limit but I am not sure that is worth doing if I am not beating this one very well yet.

I really hope to increase my win rate to more than 2BB/100, because otherwise I will get old by playing on NL5 still. ♦

Originally posted by aciddrop
Well, I have to disagree with you there. 1BB is 1BB. Winrate is measured in BB/100 hands played, not $/100 hand played, so value the blinds highly, not in relation to the limit you play.

The kind of thinking you are displaying there is the reason so many bad players enter the pot at low limits. They think, it's only a few cents at this limit, it doesn't matter. But, it is Big Blinds they are wasting, and that is how we measure our wins.

Since you are looking for a winrate of about 1.5BB/100 or better to be a winning player, how do you think that is affected when you feel casual about the loss of 6BB on one hand, because "it isn't much money at this limit"? For an average player, they will have to play 300 more hands without a mistake just to make up for the loss.

How much fun is low limit grinding, that you want to make it go on longer?

Really good point