This could work in micro tournaments too?

Just wondering b/c this was a good read and that is how I plan on building my bankroll --- thru micro tourney buy ins.

Unless someone thinks that i should stick to cash games instead.

I've done well at the micros with a lot of the ideas that sircuddles is talking about, but I would definately not apply this logic to micro tourneys.

The problem is that micro tourneys generally have tight to very tight time controls with constantly rising blinds and antes. If you play this tightly your stack will quickly get blinded away and you will be out of the tourney long before you make the money.

In tourney format you simply must steal more, play loser and take more risks in thin value situations, especially as the tourny progresses. This is basically the exact opposite of what sircuddles is talking about. Extracting fat value and avoiding thin value/marginal situations requires you to be able to wait very patiently - tournaments are all about playing in a pressure cooker.

Use Sircuddles' strategy at the micro full ring cash game tables - it's very effective, especially at the lower end.

Agreed.

POW!

tyvm, this is gonna be an epic read.

awsome guide cheers!

There just aren't enough calling stations to make your strategy profitable. You are essentially helping people lose slowly.

I disagree with that. There are plenty of stations at 2 and 5NL stars, and a decent amount at tilt (I am currently playing 2NL at tilt). Remember, this is a long term game. 5K hands is nothing, so keep plugging away. Patience is the key.

i also disagree with need some coaching. this is a great way to start playing poker

"need some coaching" im not sure what site youre playing on but this what "stranglyslucid" said is spot on. there are many CS at the micros. yes there are some aggro tards as well, but with this guide, you`ll be able to beat them very handily.

Have you actually tried this approach? Right now I'm playing the lower end of the micros on Pokerstars and I use an approach very similar to what the OP is describing and his methods have worked for me on two occasions.

The first time I started with a $5 free deposit and using this sort of approach built it up to just under $300. Then I went crazy and squandered most of it with 'fancy play syndrome' trying to outthink alot of opponents who simply weren't thinking alot of the time.

After that I gave online poker a rest for a while and came back to the game a few months later with $19 in my Stars account, which I built back up again with very little variance using an approach very similar to that described in the origional post.

Does this method 100% maximize expected value? No. Is this method suitable to everyone's playing style? No... but it sure as heck has consistently worked for me.

Finding the sweet spot between being a NIT and TAG (leaning more towards NIT) is a very profitable, high EV, low variance way to build your bankroll at this level. It is also building fundamentally sound poker skills (unlike short stacking) that you can build your TAG game off of as you progress to higher limits.

And did I happen to mention that it works?

Great guide, was brilliant read, absolutely spot on advice for how to win at micros. Pretty much impossible to lose if you play like that imo. i turned my 15$ into about 300 (mainly SNGS admittedly), and then started watching high stakes poker and trying to play like Durrr and just spunked it away.
Nice posts sir, will recommend to any more friends i keep pestering to get into poker when they finally break.

I've tried weak-tight strategies from 2NL to 25NL, both before and after the UIGEA passed. I just didn't find enough "fat value" to beat the rake. Until recently, it was hard to get any serious winrate at FT nanostakes because the rake was confiscatory.

Many, many people "beat" the micros over a small (<500K hands) sample or redeposit to move up where the rake is lower.

My PT database shows nits at 10NL typically losing 1-3BB/100. The guys who are beating the game do not play like this.

Maybe they're nits and bad.

Interesting - I respect that this was your experience, but my own is clearly very different. I'm currently playing on Stars and it's been working very well for me for 2NL, 5NL and 10NL.

I'd be curious to know where you and I have been varying our approach to weak tight play - I suspect that even something as direct as the weak tight style has a lot of room for interpretation. Often it can be as simple as just one or 2 things that keep someone losing or just breaking even when their adjustments would turn them into making a consistent profit. This has certainly been my experience.

If you've tried to follow to the letter the blueprint that sircuddles has laid out and are still running into problems I'd suggest looking at a few other parts of the game not covered in said blueprint. For me it was cbetting and blind play - I had to make my own adjustments (cbetting way less at this level, and pretty much dropping blind stealing and 90% of my hands in the small blind).

I wish I had something more constructive to offer, but I hope this is helpful.

if kq is a trouble had why raise in mp?

a.) I agree with you about the SB. On the other hand, stealing blinds was my first step out of the rock garden. I gave up tight weak play before this was written, yet my style was roughly the same.

b.) Would it help if I pointed out how similar SirCuddles' strategy is to the Supertight Is Better Than Right style Phil Hellmuth promotes?

c.) Tight-weak play reminds me of Vegas video poker in a way. Your bankroll grinds downward, while you wait to get paid off on a monster hand.

I wouldn't exactly consider this guide a weak-tight bible, to be honest.

Well-timed cbets do work at the nanos but because villains are more likely to call, the frequency of cbetting with air should go way down. (From 25NL onwards people generally recommend a cbet frequency of ~70%; at 2NL this is a recipe for disaster because you simply don't have a hand that often.)

These cbet-and-take-down pots are those that keep your balance on pretty much even level. But because villains at the shallow end of the pool are calling much more, you are right in one aspect: it is the big pots with monsters and better ends of coolers that net you the profits.

You may take my advice with a grain of salt, if you so wish. Do note however that most of the guide implies a certain assumption: 100bb stacks. Villains who call too much will butcher you if you try to play 100bb stack ABC poker 200bb+ deep. Not because the villains are any good, mind you. They simply will, by their nature, play lots of hands that can make hidden or unexpected monsters. And when they do make their hand, their bad play (with "speculative hand") is rewarded. They end up showing hands we simply did not believe possible.

I started my poker life almost three years ago as a losing 2NL player, and for a very long time I couldn't beat it. In fact, I was still a lifetime loser at 2NL a few months ago (initial 10NL roll was result of luckboxing two donkaments). After learning to beat 50NL I finally realised why 2NL was so nasty. I hadn't accounted for the 250bb stacks, and trying to play my good hands "the 2+2 ABC way" simply didn't work. In effect, I had been winning the smaller pots against those who bought in for $2 or less - and losing it all systematically to those who bought in for full $5.

I now use short 2NL sessions to finetune my HUD and test fpdb fixes. The play is as atrocious as ever, but with the better understanding of the game dynamics, it's like harvesting plums.

I suspect that you are right and that blind stealing can be profitable if you are being attentive to the tendancies of your opposition. However I chose not to bother with it and I was surprised by how well I continued to do.

Playing my own brand of tight-weak (not TAG, but slightly more aggressive than traditional Tight-Weak) has done nothing but build my role at the lower end. I'm not sure of my exact rate at 2/5 yet but at 1/2 tight-weak was charted out at averaging for an extended period just over 20.8 bb/100 hands playing 4 tables with no software, which is pretty much the dictionary definition of crushing it.

I'm not trying to contradict your stated experience, but my analytical side keeps coming back to the idea that there must be certain elements of the weak tight style that we are interpreting and enacting differently in our game that would account for out different outcomes using what we both generically refer to as 'weak-tight'.

Starting hand requirements is a real possibility... my experience in varying my own starting requirements has revealed to me that small difference in what I elect to play from different starting positions as well as adapting to action in front of me and anticipating action behind has had a major effect on my win/loss rate.

I find this to be a very interesting idea - that one of the problems playing with shortstacks is that that there is a limited payout against them when you hit your monsters.

My question to you about this is wouldn't your limited upside also be ballanced by your limited downside in that you can only lose less to them when they make a big hand?

I'd be curious to know what you think.
...

I think you misunderstand me. The ABC poker advocated by 2+2 and cuddles's guide works well enough against weak and stationy opponents. However, the strategies implicitly assume that the effective stacks are around 100bb. With the default lines they often set up situations where over long term the villains simply will make unprofitable (=losing) calls.

We "know" how to play against shorter stacks. But taking the same lines against deep stacks will take us to Bustoville. The majority of the hands we are playing aggressively can make only simple showdown hands. But deepstacked, the weaker and less expected drawing hands become more valuable. If we still take bet/bet/shove lines, chasing a nice draw passively is actually a damn profitable strategy for villains - even if they do it without understading why.

So it is the net effect of the game mechanics changing around us without us realising it.

As to your original question? Playing against shorties is basically a straightforward mathematical problem, and as such, solvable. The amounts we win or lose in individual hands are just statistical fluctuation. Now that I can actually play some poker, I find deeper stacks more satisfying ... and against weak field, far more profitable.

Most people would disagree with this (myself included)

But everyone has different experiences. If you find that there aren't enough calling stations, then bluff a little more. Tailor your game to your opponents.

Not sure what levels you're talking about. At 25NL, I've had a lot of difficulty getting to showdown with the best hand.

thanks for this thread!

If you find there are not enough calling stations then I think you are table selecting badly. Stop getting on waitlists for tight existing tables and instead get on new tables that are just starting. That is where the calling stations are more likely to be.

I have both Pokertracker and PTR telling me that winrates are much more modest than that.

As I explained in another thread:

Most bad players these days have 66bb or less, unless they double up.

Here's another reason why weak-tight doesn't work. The fish will play junk and hit low two pair and let the nit stack off with TPTK. Or they will shove with a flush draw; if the nit doesn't fold, his made hand will be crushed about 40% of the time.