|
rudefella
|
12-19-2008, 04:09 PM
Post subject: Keeping The Bad Player Alive?
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 84
|
|
Here is an interesting hypothetical situation.
You have been playing at a table full of rocks not making much money when an overly LAG player arrives. Within a few orbits, the LAG player puts on a few bad beats to the rocks and now everyone at the table has loosened up. The table has turned very profitable for you. Several times you have been able to re-raise after the LAG player raised and several of cold calls followed ,and take down good sized pots uncontested. You also generally benefitted from the looser play a couple times when players have overplayed top pair good kicker.
Pretty soon you find yourself in a spot to call the LAG player all in for what is a moderate +EV situation (let's say two over cards with a flush draw up against what seems like top pair). You know that if you bust this player he won't be buying back in and if he leaves, the rocks will settle down and stop spewing money.
Would anybody fold this +EV hand because the +EV of the table dynamic that his presence creates?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
bigred
|
|
PROFESSIONAL TROLL
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Nest of Douchebags
Posts: 2,184
|
|
There are many fish in the sea.
|
|
LOL OPERATIONS
|
|
rudefella
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 84
|
|
Yeah I suppose. I'm just thinking if there are scenarios in which people would turn down a short term +EV hand to foster a better long term+ EV situation.
I can think of times that I've played live games (.50-1.00 no limit) with friends in which everyone at the table agrees to play for a set time ( say 6 hours) unless you go bust. That way no one can just double up and leave the game - sure they can tighten up, but they can't break up the game. Many times you are playing against 1 or 2 awful players who funnel other people's money to you. Often times those bad players were under-rolled, so they left if they went busted. I never considered turning down +EV situations to those players to keep them in the game, and was wondering if anyone had thoughts about it.
|
|
|
|
BankItDrew
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Losing Prop Bets
Posts: 2,789
|
|
I've never thought of this before and I can understand where OP is coming from. I suppose it makes perfect sense to chose the most +EV situation, whether it be a long term result or a short term one.
My concerns are: the rocks at the table are making +EV moves vs you at the table as they take into consideration the change in table dynamics; and, this OP idea assumes that the new laggy fish is around long enough.
I say take the fish's chips while it's still alive.
|
Girlfriend: Why are the werewolves more important than living life?!
Girlfriend: Are you on the forums doing the werewolves again?
Girlfriend: Soo... you forgot to run that errand, but you had time to werewolf? Wtf?
|
|
oskar
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
Posts: 2,452
|
|
I had a situation a while back where a loose donk put in 90% of his stack on the river when I had the nuts. I shoved and he reluctantly called, I took it down and he left. I thought it would have probably been better to just leave him a couple of bucks and maybe he'll double up, or reload after a couple of hands more. A lot of people just leave after loosing their whole buy in. I think they're more likely to reload if you leave them some chips and let them cool down.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
