Quote Originally Posted by Molinero
Can one only become profitable by playing against inferior competition? ... Am I a fool to want to sit at a table at which I am probably the worst player?
I agree with Whileone here, and think the answers to these are both yes and no. Playing with competition that's better than you will improve your play (and possibly your long term profits once you improve), but its not +EV. In the long term you're basically guaranteed to lose to someone that's better than you, until you become better than them.

But I don't think by any means that its most profitable to play with the fishiest players, especially considering that those players will likely be at the lowest limits and better players will likely be at higher limts. Beating a 10/20 game a little bit (over the rake) is clearly more profitable than killing a .01/.02 game.

Plus playing against complete fish must cap your progress as a player at some point. You get good enough to beat them, and then don't need to improve anymore, and in fact its probably most profitable not to. Against the typical loose passive fish, its most profitable to be tight and passive, as they're not going to respect your bluffs, and will still pay off your big hands even if you rarely raise. But tight passive play gets practically nowhere against much better, much more aggressive players.

Basically, I think its best to play at the highest level that easily fits into your bankroll and skill level. A level of competition that's challenging for you, but also where you're at least better than the average player. You don't need to be better than everyone, just be able to hold your own against the best (not lose too much) and beat the average player in the long run.