How can I get past level 1 thinking, when my opponents could have any two cards? I'm new to live limit and see people playing almost anything. Thanks!

Do you think playing AA is profitable against any two cards? How can you prove it. If so then you should play it. How about KK, QQ, AK ...QTs? When do you stop?

If you are new to the game, those questions are probably going to feel either trivially easy or completely impossible to answer (it's neither)

Start by reading some of the recommended material in the FAQ, read and participate in the forum. Some of the first concepts to look up and understand should be ranges, patience, equity, pot odds, patience, value bets and patience

Welcome to the forums. Have fun!

How about we start with, "hey paperstreet04, welcome to the Small Stakes forum".
Depending on the limit, it is possible that some of your opponents are playing nearly any two cards. If you are in a game with 7+ to the flop every hand, some people are playing >70% of all hands. If you are playing in a game where every pot is raised and every pot has 2 or 3 to see the flop, this isn't the case and you can start thinking about raising ranges.

Start with our FAQ. There are links there to lots of good things. The micros library was a very good resource, though a little more online focused. I'd try a book, and there should be some suggestions in the FAQ (I hope).

Level 1: I have cards. This is my hand.
Level 2: My opponent has cards. What could they be?
Level 3: My opponent knows that I have cards. What does he think they could be?

If you're aware that your opponents could have virtually any two cards, you're already on level 2. Thinking any deeper in games where people are playing "no fold em" is counter-productive. Just play solid hands that have an equity edge against the school of fish and jam the pot when you're getting the best of it. Easy game.

...and fold when you are beaten!

FAQ? Where do you find the FAQ?

Don't forget the level 0 player: the drunk guy who calls and raises with no apparent rhyme or reason.

Each forum should have a FAQ in the stickies at the top of the first page. Ours is here, as written by AvoidThe9to5 and others.

Theres often very little reason to go past this.

I would consider reading the small stakes lhe book to get an understanding of the game. After you become familiar with the ideas in it, adjust them according to the games texture you're playing in at the moment.

+1. Small Stakes Hold'Em by Malmuth, Miller and Sklansky.

So frustrating when he shows up with like 7 high against the rest of the table all night long but constantly has it whenever you're at showdown with him -_-

Is this a strategy or therapy thread? Or a level?

In response to OP: even if your opponents are of the type who will play any two cards, they will rarely play them all the same way. There are patterns in betting, raising, calling, checkraising, etc.; look for them.

meta

The problem with thinking of the levels is that the correct exploitive adjustment is always going to be some extreme like:

bluff a ton and fold bluffcatchers against a nit

bluff a ton and call bluffcatchers vs a scaredycatlag

never bluff and fold bluffcatchers vs a showdown bound nit

never bluff and call bluffcatchers vs a showdown bound nit who misses value

see where this is going? We shouldn't go to such extremes in an attempt to exploit someone that we have a small sample against. Instead, we should adjust on the margins from our default strategy, whatever that is.

So if I think A4o is a profitable check call on the XXX flop against a button raiser when I'm in the big blind against one of the above player types, then I might fold that A4o against a showdown bound nit. If I'm against a showdown bound lag, then I'm adding some hands to my check call range, I might even add some King highs to my check call range, depending on the flop of course. Interestingly, as the opponent's position moves away from the button, his opening range will, or should change, and so should your response to his bets.

Bluffing a ton as a response to your opponent's tendency to fold a lot has an effect on your opponent's tendency to fold a lot, so getting into a situation where 1) your opponent doesn't respect your bets, and 2) you're bluffing with a low equity hand, and then all of a sudden 3) you start getting called down more, which leads to 4) back to square one. For this reason, I expand my bluffing range sometimes, but not by much. Once you get past the obvious +ev semibluffs with strong draws, you're left with nothing but backdoor draws and single overcards. I think bluffing with the backdoor stuff is good sometimes against players that like to fold a lot, but bluffing with the single overcard hands is no good. Overcard and a backdoor flushdraw? Idk man that's a thin bluff against some and lighting money on fire against most.

Never bluffing as a response to your opponent's inability to lay down a hand depends on his calling frequency. I might tighten up my bluffs a bit against someone that's been calling me down a lot, but I'm still blasting away with my high equity draws. Skip the low equity bluffs against this guy and value bet like a champ and you'll do fine.