A soft poker game is one that is very easy to beat. The key to making money at poker, which is after all the primary reason to play in the first place, is to identify these games. It should be a simple process, but it really isn’t, although hopefully this article will make it easier for you to spot them in future.
First, we need to understand that specific players are suited to specific games, and by “specific games” I am not talking about distinguishing them based on table stakes, but rather differentiating them according to player composition at that table. If you are a naturally conservative player, a rock who plays premium hands very aggressively but is otherwise extremely patient, and you happen upon a table full of passive players who don’t raise much but who do like to chase hands, then you are going to win a lot of money. Similarly, if you are a maniac who is willing to play any two cards very aggressively and who enjoys the stone-cold bluff, and you happen upon a table full of rocks, then you are going to win a lot of money.
This is a key observation: Two “good” players with contrasting styles can sit down at a “weak” table, where they are clearly the two best players, yet one of the players will clean up while the other will have a relatively poor session. A lot of poker players will then berate themselves, thinking they had an off day, but my theory is that often the composition of players at that particular table did not suit them. It doesn’t have to be about the whole table. It could simply be due to the fact that the wrong player is seated immediately to their right or left, ruining all their plays. A lot of solid players request seat changes not because they are hoping to change their luck (the people who do this, or who call for fresh decks are superstitious fools and nothing more), but because they need to isolate a weak player or get away from a strong one.
A useful analogy is to think of poker games in the same way that one might combine various chemical compounds. There are certain combinations of poker players that lead to flammable situations for you, even though if you looked at each player on his own you would find them harmless. There are times when the way a table is organized will spell a huge winning session for you, even though you might be playing at a higher limit than usual.
This leads me to the main myth surrounding “soft” games, which can be summarized as follows: The higher the table stakes the harder the game. This is absolute nonsense, but a lot of poker players believe it as gospel. You hear it all the time – if a player who think very highly of his own abilities only had the bankroll to move up from his lousy local $3-$6 limit and play $10-$20 he feels he would do a lot better. Why? Because he believes erroneously that the play at that level is somehow quantifiably superior, and that other players will play "correct" poker as it is described in textbooks, so that they won’t suck out on him with rags. Not true at all! I used to believe this as well, but now that I play in $2000 buy-in tournaments and higher limit poker I can honestly report back that terrible players, loose players, and maniacs exist at every limit. I can also say that there are $2-$4 limit games that I cannot beat, even though I regularly win at stakes that are 25 times higher.
Each poker table is unique, and some of them will suit your game perfectly, while others will be insurmountable and will crush you. The key is not to judge oneself too harshly on these discrete results. Instead, take a long-term view. If you find that you have played five sessions at $10-$20 and lost all five, then it might not be a question of player composition alone, although you need to look at the matter closely. Are you up against the same cast of characters as opponents? Or perhaps you are up against different players but the same styles? There could be other factors at work, however. You must always play poker at a level that suits your bankroll, and by that I mean a level where the money on the table is not important to you. If you play $1-$2 and have $1000 in your account you can play your best game without worrying about the consequences of losing during that session. If you play $10-$20 and only have $100 left in your account, then you are almost certainly going to play a restrained and ineffective style of poker, because this session could be the last one you can afford.
So there will be times when your state of mind and financial state conspire to make a poker game tougher or softer. The obvious conclusion is that you need to do everything that is in your power to give you the best shot of making a profit for any given session. That means tackling a limit that suits your bankroll, and that you feel you can beat. Players get intimidated when they step up a level, but why should they? It is the same game simply for different colored chips, but the units of betting, the strategy, and the principles of good poker are all identical. I would also advocate staying at a table for as long as possible when you are winning big. A lot of players like to take their profit and book a winning session, but if you are not tired and have the focus and energy you must try and stay. Poker players are always eager to re-buy and stay at games that they are not suited to because of pride and a desire to get back to even. Yet, they will bolt from games that they are destroying. Pros all see the lack of logic here, and that's why they are seen as ruthless and successful. They crush soft games and flee from hard games, and you should do the same.
On a final note, you will find players at $1-$2 that have your number, and you will find players at $100-$200 that you can skin alive. Never feel that you are “too good” for a game because of the stakes, and never feel that you are a fish because the stakes are high. Soft games have nothing to do with limits, and everything to do with how you as an individual player match up against the rest of your table.
