Hello all, thanks for stopping by to take a look at my thoughts. Today's topic is one that I think hits close to home for many players that I know. We aren't professionals. We aren't playing high limits. We aren't playing medium limits. We aren't even playing low limits.
Because poker is a recreational activity for us, we play the micro-limit tables (limits below $1/$2 No Limit games and $3/$6 Limit games). I have heard stories of the micro-limit winning players. I have even had people tell me that this is where they started and that they have moved up beyond and are a winning player at higher limits. But it is my solid belief that it is statistically imposssible (data to come for you stat-heads!) to be a long-term winning micro-limit player UNLESS you play games where people play the same game, regardless of the limits being played.
I can hear you now...you all know someone who was/is a successful micro-limit player. You might think you do. But I say that the person telling you that they are successful at these limits is doing one of three things to sustain their winning streak. Hear me out and then judge.
Type 1. These are the people that claim micro-limit success but are supplimenting their BR with bonus or affiliate money of some type. If they kept accurate records, they would be unable to show a profit at these limits for any period longer than 6 months (short term variance)
Type 2. These are the people that play "other" games than just micro-limit cash games. I myself have some pretty decent numbers in the "Sit-N-Gos" (regardless of what sites like pokerscope say). If I stuck to the $1-10 buy in SnGs, I would be showing a profit for the year, of about $250.
Type 3. These are the players who got ahead due to short-term variance and made it up to a level where they can have a sustainable profit, where the statistics I am about to share to not play a role in their games. They truely were "profitable" in the micro-limits, but it was only for a short period before they moved up to limits where they could compete without the handicap described below.
I am sure that I am missing some types. My guess is that there are a lot of players out there who sustain their micro-limit habit through one or more of the above means. Players jump up and down in limits to the low-limit games. Players play SnGs or MTTs that they can cash in and sustain the habit.
Most of us playing down at this level probably realize this and just don't care. Poker is a hobby, and losing $50-100 a month is not a big deal. If we didn't play poker, we would be playing something else like golf that can be MUCH more expensive, so we are happy where we are playing.
So that is the set-up. Now for some numbers. How can I be so sure that it is statstically impossible to be a winning micro-limit cash game player? Here are some statstics and assumptions. All the stats come from Pokerstove, the best poker calculator out there (no, they don't pay me for endorsements. yet. hint, hint)
My first assumption is that in the micro-limit games, you are very rarely going to be seeing a flop heads-up. In limit games I think everyone agrees. In no-limit, this can get a bit tougher to prove, but if you are only raising 3-5X the BB, you are bound to have several callers at this level, as people think things like "aw, it is only $0.75 more to call. I have seen this hand hit on TV and when it does I'm going to get paid off!" (sound familiar?)
So what hands can hold up to playing vs several players on the flop? The answer is going to surprise you. If you are seeing a flop with 4 other players in a hand (not unheard of at all in micro-limit limit style games) there is ONE hand that has a statstical advantage. AA has roughtly 56% equity in the pot. That's it. Here's the data:
3,166,043 games 15.734 secs 201,223 games/sec
Board:
Dead:
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 55.9348 % 55.72% 00.22% { AcAd }
Hand 2: 11.0293 % 10.48% 00.55% { random }
Hand 3: 11.0345 % 10.48% 00.55% { random }
Hand 4: 11.0082 % 10.46% 00.55% { random }
Hand 5: 10.9932 % 10.44% 00.55% { random }
Let me define what I would consider a statstical advantage and you can all rip it up at your leisure. After the flop, you will have people who continue to chase flush or straight draws, sure. If you raise enough, they are still going to come along. But the majority of the time you will end up HU vs one player. This is the guy who hit his hand. If you manage to get others to come along for the ride and chase, that's great, but the guy who hit is going to cap or get you all in vs his made hand, and you need greater than 50% equity for this to be a payoff. Granted, if you can get it all in preflop, this is not an issue. There you will most likey be HU or vs 2 other opponents and your profitable hands can increase. Mostof the time, people are not going all in PF and you are going to have to make decisions after the flop vs multiple opponents. You need to have greater than 50% equity for this to be a +EV play.
Okay, so what if you have 3 opponents? What hands can hold up now? Take a look:
9,858,486 games 26.687 secs 369,411 games/sec
Board:
Dead:
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 41.4413 % 40.59% 00.90% { AcKc }
Hand 2: 19.5120 % 18.64% 00.89% { random }
Hand 3: 19.5153 % 18.65% 00.88% { random }
Hand 4: 19.5315 % 18.66% 00.89% { random }
AK SOOOOOTED is no good.
18,757,262 games 50.375 secs 372,352 games/sec
Board:
Dead:
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 49.2017 % 49.13% 00.31% { JcJd }
Hand 2: 16.9246 % 16.39% 00.62% { random }
Hand 3: 16.9347 % 16.40% 00.61% { random }
Hand 4: 16.9389 % 16.41% 00.62% { random }
JJ even is no good. You have to ONLY play AA, KK or QQ.
So how to counteract this disadvantage? You can't, unless you can thin the field by getting it all-in preflop, which most of the time you are only going to do with these hands. So it is a catch-22. You play any other hand after the flop vs multiple opponents and the only ones calling you have you beat and isolate you HU to take your chips. There are a few ways to get around this, like trying to play "small ball" and I know a few people who can do this successfully for a short time.
I think that the real issue is finding players who are willing to play good, solid poker at this level for a long peroid of time. I am sure that there may be one or two players out there who are going to try to prove me wrong, but the profits at this level are just not high enough for the majority of players to stick around that are willing to put in this time and effort. This level is full of players like me, who are completely there for a hobby and recreation. We aren't there to feed our families and support ourselves on poker. It is all about economics. At the micro-limits, it is not worth it and the players who want to become consistent winning players move up and out.
My guess is that the majority of the micro-limit players out there know this on some level, and don't care. They are just playing to have fun. Think about it.
Meanwhile, I'll cya at the tables.
