Question for the advanced fellas

So I read a lot on this board about "getting the fish to pay me off" and "don't tap the glass" and so on. And I've read a lot elsewhere about the (seemingly) obvious stratagem of choosing a table at which I am the favorite.

My experience (brief though it may be) has been, though, that when I am the best player at the table, I am handed a lot of really silly (not necessarily bad) beats. Sure, i get my good hands paid off, but it seems like a break-even given the fact that I have so many chips in the pot when they do hit their runner-runner draw.

As a result, I find that I prefer a "good" game with players that are as good or better than I. Is this "poor table selection", according to conventional wisdom? Can one only become profitable by playing against inferior competition?

How much time do you guys spend at a table with players that make you nervous?

Originally Posted by Molinero

it seems like a break-even given the fact that I have so many chips in the pot when they do hit their runner-runner draw.

This from the guy who spiked his bluff on me, undoing my whole night's patient winnings and turning me into a hothead.

What you're describing is called "implicit collusion". In a nutshell, this means 3 people making bad calls is equivalent (in terms of effect on your profit) to 1 person making good calls.

So if you're sitting with 9 fish you get
-about the same profit as you would versus 3 good players
-pissed off, because instead of getting outplayed you're constantly getting outsucked.

Originally Posted by Molinero

I prefer a "good" game with players that are as good or better than I. Is this "poor table selection"

What you want is overall good players, with 1 or 2 fish. If someone at the table is quite a bit better than you, you need to know who it is and stay out of hisher way. This is why people move up in limits when they can afford to.

Originally Posted by LeFou

What you're describing is called "implicit collusion". In a nutshell, this means 3 people making bad calls is equivalent (in terms of effect on your profit) to 1 person making good calls.

I think it's also called schooling ... that's when the fish are all calling into a pot and so by the time the last one calls he's actually doing it with correct pot odds. 'Schooling' is just a funnier way of describing it

mj

Schooling just shifts the money from big pairs to sets and big draws

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...pic.php?t=4684

OK...I get all that. But what about the other stuff? Am I a fool to want to sit at a table at which I am probably the worst player?

Originally Posted by Molinero

OK...I get all that. But what about the other stuff? Am I a fool to want to sit at a table at which I am probably the worst player?

yes....you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. what you're doing is training yourself. i would never want to sit down at a table with Fnord to try and make money only because i know he's a tricky player and i'd go crazy trying to read him. i would prefer only to play with him for educational purposes. but when i'm out to make money i want many loose passives.

Originally Posted by Molinero

Am I a fool to want to sit at a table at which I am probably the worst player?

Not if you go into it expecting to pay tuition - studying how the better players play in different situations. If you expect to dramatically improve while you are sitting with them...and actually make a profit, well....that won't happen.

In chess, playing worse players tends to make you worse. Playing better players tends to make you better. I never got good, but i could tell the quality of my play deteriorated when I played against people who were worse than me. And the quality of my game improved after tough games.

At some point chess players get picky about who they will play against for this reason. At a certain level, It dosn't really matter anymore. The really good guys would play anybody who wanted to, cause they loved playing and wanted to get more people into the game.

Poker is tricky, with chess you can be perfectly results oriented. With poker, you have to play right, and keep playing right for thousands of hands. so i think the quality of players has a much lower impact on the quality of your play.

What i'm trying to say is, pick your games pretty carefully until you are in the top 5% of poker players. (135 million players, so about 6 million in that group) everything will be internalized by then, you'll know how to play the cards blindfolded, and have a good handle on playing the money.

know when to quit. know the difference between learning and tilting. Heck playing against a school of fish can be tricky. with most sports you can play harder. with chess you can think harder. I find it pretty tough to play poker better with my emotions running high, so winning is always measured in the long term.

Watch some good players, they don't pay off very often. Tricky bastards. A lot of fishy players don't understand pot odds. Sometimes, you can bluff one player out of a pot with a little bet much easier than with a big bet. But the player right next to him will call bets that look cheap, you have to bet big to chase that guy off.

I think, when you say, "i'm the best player at the table" you mean, I know i'm better that those five guys, but i can't seem to put the other four on hands, so i'm probably better than they are as well. Well, it really takes quite a while to decide if someone sucks or not. They could have a string of rocking cards. There are a few folks that limp in far to often, but play quite well post flop to make up for it. Try to make a deep evaluation of their play, not a shallow one. don't assume much about them based on stack size. look at the cards they show. look at how much respect they get. look at how much they bet, and more importantly what they fold to.

I dunno, I'm finding it pretty easy to get huge pots with lots of fish, i don't have to contribute much, because there's 3 callers. Play the draws. from time to time you can take down TPTK. If everybody and thier grandma is calling tho, AA isn't much better than TT. you *need* a set, somebody is gonna have two pair. But chasing pays off huge, so you can play 54 suited, profitably as long as there are 5 or 6 limpers in front of you. heck, min raise it, the'll all come along. You gotta let go of the second best hand. You're going to be showing down pretty often. Second dosn't pay anything.

For what it's worth, i'm playing the microlimits, it's packed with terrible play. I don't feel like i'm suffering a huge number of bad beats, maybe i'm a fish? I think it's more about deciding if you really can win, and making them pay. I get a little delusonal about the quality of pocket aces, it's still just top pair. I suppose i've folded the best a time or two, when that was the best hand, but four clubs on the board, with only red cards.... no reason to pay that off with four players. usualy somebody else will call anyway so you can tell if your fold was good, and adjust your opinion of the player accordingly.

You may want to take a long look at your definition of "Best" could Fnord clean these guys out? what does he do differently? why can't you do that?

just my big blind.

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.

I think that playing on a table with one or two fish are profitable as the whole table will pretty much "team up" against them and take their whole bankroll, but playing on a table full of fish is one of the hardest things to do in my limited experience. The thing is you really can't put them on hands and the only hands you can profit from are monsters. For one thing, bluffs and semibluffs have no effect, as fish will call you down with almost anything. In one of my home games there are about 5 fish on a table of 7. One fish will call anything (he is literally in every pot). Then there are other fish that think straight and flush draws are great hands and are willing to push with them. Then there are others that don't even know what a kicker is and can't read a board if their life depended on it. Then there are others who will check/call with big pocket pairs all the way down to the river. And lastly there are the fish that just love to bluff. In every pot there are 3-4 people involved despite a 5xBB raise, so you are bound to catch a bad beat.

Here's a couple of examples from one of my home games with these fish. I hold 99 on the button so I raise 5xBB, three others call. Flop is 433 rainbow. Everyone checks to me and I bet big and get reraised all in by the guy UTG. I call and he shows J3o!!! Another time I held AT in the CO so I raise about 4xBB, and get three callers. Flop is T93 rainbow. Everyone checks to me and I push, and a guy calls with JJ!!! I mean how can I put him on a over pair if he never raised once?!! This kind of crap just irritates me so I prefer not to even play with these guys b/c it feels like a waste of my time.

Originally Posted by LeFou

This from the guy who spiked his bluff on me, undoing my whole night's patient winnings and turning me into a hothead.

Jealous????

Originally Posted by bdawg56kg

For one thing, bluffs and semibluffs have no effect, as fish will call you down with almost anything.

This is the one thing that keeps me from thinking that I, in fact, am a total fish myself.

when you win they lose
when they win you lose

I want to win so I play with losers

It's easier to put good players on hands than it is to put a bad player on a hand. however, it's easier to take a poor players money than a good ones.

Once you gain more experiance you will be able to sit with the fish and play the waiting game. You most likely feel better at bad tables because it's easier to know where you are and you recieve less bad beats.

Schooling just shifts the money from big pairs to sets and big draws

This is the key to playing fishy tables ... hands like JJ now become drawing hands etc. So I will make my money on Nut flushes sets and str8s, not much else.

Although I have heard people say that theoretically u can make lots of money by just playing slightly tighter than the table, what do people think of this?