The Micro Debate

[Nakor]

Micro Limits, a great place to learn NL Texas Hold'em at minimal risk. Learning the game while you risk no more than a pound.

Is all that's bollox, are they are really a big waste of time? Instead of learning the poker ropes at next to no financial risk, do they just teach you how to play a waiting game?
Can a poker education at one and a half pence/threepence blinds inhibit your chances of moving up, by instilling bad habits of playing dull unimaginiative poker that will never see you past a certain level.

How many big cash game pros ever started here with a £10 deposit that gave them a 500 BB roll that they nurtured like an oak sapling, or do you reckon most of them spent that £10 on a book, stuck in 200 proper knicker and just got on with at limits where the pot of the evening is actually is enough to pay for a Kingsize Mars bar.

In 13 years time, is $2/$4 gonna get real tough when all the 2 c/4c players finally move up?

I have to say for me the Micro debate is two fold.

Cash I side on it destroyed my game, I started my Cash career on Micro limits and I feel it taught me many things and ingrained some things that have spoilt my game, and have taken a long time to unlearn now I have moved up.  Waiting for a spot, playing your big hands is not enough IMO.  And this is the two big things it teaches you.  As for short handed forget about it, I read a post from Pab I think, not so long back about the day he learnt to raise in a certain position with any two cards, and how it was like a light going on, for me it brings a cold shiver.  All I believe, because now years later I cannot break the chains of the lessons learnt from Micro limits.  Full ring I have made some massive steps, don't get me wrong I'm no shark but I do believe that it was Micro Limit games that extended my learning curve by quite some time.

Now STT's and Multi's I believe micro limits ingrained things in me that are good still today.  Position, stack size appreciation, fold equity, gears, bubble play can all be learnt at lower levels and are still very important.  True people have less respect for the chips in front of them potentially, because of how much they cost, but for me STT's and Multi's are all about putting yourself at the best statistical and tactical advantage something you can attempt at any level.
Oh and one proviso, if you are a fish at one or all the main disciplines above, its cheaper to be a fish at Micro limits as my sharkscope shows.  But I guess potential return is what drives some/most/all of us.  Thankfully Cash allowed me to grow a bankroll rather then donk my MTT wins off on STT's for ever more, but looking back wish I had taken the plunge at a higher level.

[Ironside]

1 hour play $1.55 profit bankroll is $47.08 gonna play the freeroll later a  win there will really get me going

[Ironside]

BTW i know this is below the minimum wage but is a hobby and not meant to be supplementing my income and anyway i don't like tossing burgers

[Graham C]

My question: does every individual playing poker, bankroll aside, have a natural level beyond which their ability does not allow them to progress?

Now that's a good question that's hard to answer.  It's difficult to tell if I'm capable at cutting it at the higher stakes because I can't afford to find out.  In the tourneys that I have played at a high level ,or what I consider to be a high level for me, I think I've held my own, but I don't have the bankroll to be playing at higher levels all the time and those I have played in, I've qualified for (Mansion $100ks, $475 EPT final sat).  At the lower levels where I ply my trade, I not only have to contend with people that don't appreciate outs and therefore are happy to play with anything that looks pretty, but also with the larger fields.  Tourney at my level on Stars have anything from around 1000 players upwards in them.   If I was playing $100 tourneys as a regular thing, I wouldn't have to contend with most of that.

As for grinding it at micro limits - it's not for me.  I'd get bored to easily and I can't take 10c pot seriously enough and I fail to see what you can learn doing it.  It may be good for building bankrolls for nothing, but as for the game itself, it's just not for me.  I think you should play at a level where the money means something to you if you lose it all, but likewise, not to be playing with money you can't afford to lose.  I don't play high stakes myself, but when I sit at a cash game with between $50 and $100, or play in a tourney that costs me maybe even just $10, that's an amount worth caring over for me, but it's got to mean something in my humble opinion.

[Graham C]

1 hour play $1.55 profit bankroll is $47.08 gonna play the freeroll later a  win there will really get me going

BTW i know this is below the minimum wage but is a hobby and not meant to be supplementing my income and anyway i don't like tossing burgers

$1.55 for an hour.  I know profit is good and at least it's not a loss and you are enjoying it, but why not move up a bit.  Even moving up but to a limit game would be better wouldn't it?  Take $10 and sit on a $0.25/$0.50 limit game, you'll make more money in an hour, even if it's just taking a two small pots.

[Ironside]

the difference is if i lose 2 pots in the 25/50 game i could end uplosing half the roll i am starting with

i plan on moving you to a bigger game once i  buld the roll up a little there is no rush in getting to the big games they will still be there

[Ironside]

just had a look at who many tables are on the go at 1/2c over 70 of them most of them will proberly be playing for fun and have no idea what they are doing it shouldnt be too hard playing a few hours a week to move up to 5/10 quickly

[Graham C]

i plan on moving you to a bigger game once i  buld the roll up a little there is no rush in getting to the big games they will still be there

awefully nice of you

[RED-DOG]

My question: does every individual playing poker, bankroll aside, have a natural level beyond which their ability does not allow them to progress?

Now that's a good question that's hard to answer.  It's difficult to tell if I'm capable at cutting it at the higher stakes because I can't afford to find out.  In the tourneys that I have played at a high level ,or what I consider to be a high level for me, I think I've held my own, but I don't have the bankroll to be playing at higher levels all the time and those I have played in, I've qualified for (Mansion $100ks, $475 EPT final sat).  At the lower levels where I ply my trade, I not only have to contend with people that don't appreciate outs and therefore are happy to play with anything that looks pretty, but also with the larger fields.  Tourney at my level on Stars have anything from around 1000 players upwards in them.   If I was playing $100 tourneys as a regular thing, I wouldn't have to contend with most of that.

As for grinding it at micro limits - it's not for me.  I'd get bored to easily and I can't take 10c pot seriously enough and I fail to see what you can learn doing it.  It may be good for building bankrolls for nothing, but as for the game itself, it's just not for me.  I think you should play at a level where the money means something to you if you lose it all, but likewise, not to be playing with money you can't afford to lose.  I don't play high stakes myself, but when I sit at a cash game with between $50 and $100, or play in a tourney that costs me maybe even just $10, that's an amount worth caring over for me, but it's got to mean something in my humble opinion.

Good post Silo.