I like fish, but hate shoals of them

Here's another mini-rant. The reason I rant a lot is because whenever I lose a large pot, it is usually to someone who has played unconventionally, erratically or bloody badly against my textbook-like play. Sometimes I get outplayed - don't have a problem with that, nor do I have a problem with the fact that an occasional fishy play will get lucky and take a big pot off me. But it happens too much.

I once suggested that internet poker had to be rigged - I now readily concede that this is not he case and was wrong to put this forward. What I do believe is that there is much, much more fishy play online than in live play. Eg, many players will play any two suited cards and any two high cards (i was always taught not to call a preflopm raise with, eg QJo) from any position. The result is that a lot of straights and flushes appear.

True, as internet poker is faster than live poker there are more hands played per hour, but this is not the reason for all the flushes and straights. Comparing my two local card clubs and casinos, straights and flushes appear around 5% of the time, whereas online the figure is more than 10% (on the site on which I play at least). And the reason is that many players play weak drawing hands without proper odds and hit out.This happens less in live play where the action of physically moving the chips or the cash has an effect on players!

people call raises with QJo in live play. I think you are underestimating the fishyness of low limit live games

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelion

people call raises with QJo in live play. I think you are underestimating the fishyness of low limit live games

---

Yes, they do occasionally, I agree, but not as much as online, and I am fairly certain it is the physical aspect of handling chips and money that makes the difference. I think for many players pushing a button is easy and you are not seeing real money disappear before your very eyes.

Having said that, the games I play in my local cardrooms are similar to top class action in that a pot will be played out two or three handed at most because of preflop betting patterns, unlike online where it might easily be four, five or six handed.

Counter-play?

I'm beginning to love fishy tables. TPTK/top two is normally worth jack shit. Sometimes sets are busted. JJ+ rarely win unimproved (unless it's HU). If there's an ace on the flop, you can almost guarentee some nit called your KK PFR with A-rag.

Textbook poker doesn't help much here. Counter-play does.

Even to the point of exclusively nut peddling.

your other post said you've quintupled your BR in 2 motnhs or something - why do you think that was? Could it be all the fish calling with crap and not hitting most of the time?

A fish isn't defined by what he calls with preflop. It's a common misconception. If you raise, and 3 callers come behind you, I might look down at just about anything and call. Then I'll take a chunk out of you with 7Ts, and you'll call me a fish for two hours. Just had odds. Looseness begets looseness. It snowballs. You get a couple loosies at a table, and you'll have a couple of solid players coming in each hand with a wide range just because the fish are +EV shielding them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bunthorne

The reason I rant a lot is because whenever I lose a large pot, it is usually to someone who has played unconventionally, erratically or bloody badly against my textbook-like play.

---

What proportion of large pots you win are due to your opponents' unconventional, erratic or bloody bad play? I'd wager you don't know, because you don't have a tally of rants to document them like you do your losses.

Quote:

---

nor do I have a problem with the fact that an occasional fishy play will get lucky and take a big pot off me. But it happens too much.

---

Sounds like you do have a problem.

Quote:

---

Comparing my two local card clubs and casinos, straights and flushes appear around 5% of the time, whereas online the figure is more than 10%

---

Do you mean people show down more straights and flushes or you're seeing more boards with three to a straight or flush? Either way, I'd like to know where your statistics come from. Don't forget that your opponents drawing against the odds you're betting with is how you make money.

Dude, you totally got to get over it. You are looking at it all wrong. I’ll sit at a fishy loose table any day over a tight table.
There are play styles that beat fishy tables and there are play styles that beat tight tables. They are different though. At fishy tables go with predictable, weak, tight, aggressive and you will make good money. When a bad beat comes, realize - the play that allows a bad beat means your opponents called with bad odds. Bad beat = poor play = money for you = happy.

The obvious problem here is someone has failed to adjust to, and/or can't handle higher variance common to loose tables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drmcboy

your other post said you've quintupled your BR in 2 motnhs or something - why do you think that was? Could it be all the fish calling with crap and not hitting most of the time?

---

I don't think it is.

I seem to make most of my profits by putting players on hands and then making them throw them away.

Example: I am fairly certain my opponent is on a flush or a straight draw but I have absolutely nothing. I make a huge bet on the flop or turn so that my opponent does not have the odds to draw to the flush or straight. My opponent, who is not getting the right odds, folds. He may well have held a higher card than I, but I've made him dump it.

Example: I am fairly certain my opponent has a pair. I have nothing but call small to medium bets hoping for a bluffing opportunity. A third suited card falls on the turn or river. I move in on him. He folds.

In the above situations, a call from my opponents is a bad, bad move - it takes a stronger hand to call than to bet. If they get a large bet in first with eg a flush draw, well that's a different matter - I will fold. They have played the hand correctly.

My style is very aggressive and I am thinking all the time not so much about my cards but my opponent's hand. Of course such moves don't always come off and I have misread my opponent, but this is how I play.

This is what I mean by the fish making bad calls. But one bad call is all it takes to upset the apple cart.

Say I have top pair on a flop which is two suited or connector such as K78. I bet with my AK and overbet the pot to pick it up there and then and drive out the drawing hands. The next player to act, who is getting terrible odds with his flush draw, calls. Now, the player after him isn't getting such bad odds with his straight draw so he also calls. And the final player who has paired one of the cards (lets say he holds Q8) also reckons he can call, hoping for two pair or trips.

Because of one bad call, players have not been driven out and although I am in front I'm not favourite to win the pot. Any one of nine suited cards will beat me, any one of six straight cards will beat me, any one of the two eights will beat me as will any one of three queens. Twenty cards can do me on the turn or the river - it is long odds on that one of them hits something. Sure, I could hit an A or K to strengthen my position, but could still be hit on the river by any one of twenty cards.

All this has arisen because one, just one, fish makes an inadvisable call.

On a table of fish, you might not make them fold hands. I tell anyone who will listen that in poker there is one difficult hand you must learn to fold - assuming you know that you don't play second or third pair - and that is Top Pair Medium Kicker. Too many fish play this hand and top pair weak kicker. This is great when I hold TPTK, but that doesn't happen very often.

Your style is great for tight tables but it is NOT right for fishy tables. You can't make calling stations fold (don't try). Play at pokerstars or some other site where the tables are tight. OR, adjust your style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salt3d

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bunthorne

The reason I rant a lot is because whenever I lose a large pot, it is usually to someone who has played unconventionally, erratically or bloody badly against my textbook-like play.

---

What proportion of large pots you win are due to your opponents' unconventional, erratic or bloody bad play? I'd wager you don't know, because you don't have a tally of rants to document them like you do your losses.

Quote:

---

nor do I have a problem with the fact that an occasional fishy play will get lucky and take a big pot off me. But it happens too much.

---

Sounds like you do have a problem.

Quote:

---

Comparing my two local card clubs and casinos, straights and flushes appear around 5% of the time, whereas online the figure is more than 10%

---

Do you mean people show down more straights and flushes or you're seeing more boards with three to a straight or flush? Either way, I'd like to know where your statistics come from. Don't forget that your opponents drawing against the odds you're betting with is how you make money.

---

What I mean is that more pots are won with straights and flushes online than in live play, where the winning hand tends to be a pair, trips or a full house. Perhaps this is because in live play you can make players fold hands more easily.

Many writers such as Cloutier advocate thes ewords for tournaments - DRAWS ARE DEATH - in other words, the good players stay away from them. This happens a lot less online where draws are chased with regularity. When you are in a pot with three other players also chasing draws of one form or another (say a flush, a straight or trips/two pair to beat your high pair) then the chances are one of them at least will do it.

I play in Great Britain where there are some truly great players who dominate live tournaments up and down the country. Put them up against internet players, however, and they do not fare so well. This was the subject of a previous thread I started - the reason they do not do so well is that such players play weak cards and make inadvisable calls which get lucky. I hardly ever see a pro hit a straight or a flush he went after, purely and simply because he doesn't chase these. But I so often see internet players do it.

You should nut camp for a while and practice learning to recognize when you've just been outdrawn.

You are arguing your case a lot. Let’s backup a second. First, admit that these fishy tables can be beaten. I know because I do well at loose tables. I raise to 5xbb and I get 5 callers….that’s a loose table…and I do well at them. It just takes a different style. Will you admit that they can be beaten or are you arguing that it cannot be beaten?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rondavu

The obvious problem here is someone has failed to adjust to, and/or can't handle higher variance common to loose tables.

---

I must accept what you are saying about variance and maybe I can't handle it - but why should there be such variance?

I have seen players win tournament after tournament after tournament - very few bad beats, very few showdowns lost. Why? Because their style of betting gets rid of the weaker players. But this is in live play, as opposed to internet play. The same players usually make it to the WSOP final table and did so for years - why did variance not prevent them from doing this? Answer - it did not occur in the ways it is perceived as occuring today. Of course live play is so different from internet play and I love playing against interent players live as I can spot tells on them. But online this is more difficult.

The thing which frustrates me most about poker is when people only play their cards and win a tournament. Last night a young kid won a tournament at my local casino and he got lucky cards all night - lots of pairs and big, suited aces. He never made a single bluff . Players realised this and avoided giving him action but began to get anted away and ended up losing when all in against him and he had another big pair. The good players are trying moves at selective opportunities but not this kid. This showed that lady luck was the deciding factor, which takes much of the skill out of the game. I think the same can be said online, to an extent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bunthorne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rondavu

The obvious problem here is someone has failed to adjust to, and/or can't handle higher variance common to loose tables.

---

I must accept what you are saying about variance and maybe I can't handle it - but why should there be such variance?

I have seen players win tournament after tournament after tournament - very few bad beats, very few showdowns lost. Why? Because their style of betting gets rid of the weaker players. But this is in live play, as opposed to internet play. The same players usually make it to the WSOP final table and did so for years - why did variance not prevent them from doing this? Answer - it did not occur in the ways it is perceived as occuring today. Of course live play is so different from internet play and I love playing against interent players live as I can spot tells on them. But online this is more difficult.

The thing which frustrates me most about poker is when people only play their cards and win a tournament. Last night a young kid won a tournament at my local casino and he got lucky cards all night - lots of pairs and big, suited aces. He never made a single bluff . Players realised this and avoided giving him action but began to get anted away and ended up losing when all in against him and he had another big pair. The good players are trying moves at selective opportunities but not this kid. This showed that lady luck was the deciding factor, which takes much of the skill out of the game. I think the same can be said online, to an extent.

---

Wrong. You think that winning tournament after tournament means chasing players out of every pot where you have a good hand? If you did the same thing in your cash games you'd never make any money off your pocket aces after raising it 40BBs every time.

Luck is an important factor only in that it keeps the fish coming. When you play poker, you need to pretend that you are a casino. What you're doing is offering wagers to your opponents who want to chase or who may think you're bluffing.

Quit paying everything off. No-limit offers quite a bit of wiggle room preflop. You can play 67s which is normally a crap hand, but if your opponent never folds AA, then you're going to make a shitload of money off him because you simply fold if you dont hit a monster. You are giving your opponents the implied odds to play crap hand and chase draws because when they hit, you pay it off and blame it on bad luck. Everyone's luck is the same, the edge comes from skill.

Oh and heres an example that its possible for a good online tournament player to win over and over again: http://zeejustin.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EricE

You are arguing your case a lot. Let’s backup a second. First, admit that these fishy tables can be beaten. I know because I do well at loose tables. I raise to 5xbb and I get 5 callers….that’s a loose table…and I do well at them. It just takes a different style. Will you admit that they can be beaten or are you arguing that it cannot be beaten?

---

Hi EricE. Thanks for your post.

You're right! Of course these fishy tables can be beaten and I guess it takes a different style.

My favourite tables are six player NL cash tables, max buy0in $200 and blinds 1/2. With two loose fish and two tight players on such tables, I usually clean up. The problem I encounter is when everyone is loose, ie when I make standard raise preflop, say 4 or 5 x bb, everyone calls - there is no respect for position and raises. This is when I have problems as many of these players don't fold but routinely see the turn, even in response to a large bet. I know that optimum strategy is to get the best hand and bet it hard but all too often they call and hit something.

Usually I scamper off and find another table but sometimes this type of table is all I can find. Many of my opponents are British or European (Scandinavian in particular) and these players are notoriously difficult to make fold.

If you can suggest a style, I'd be ever so grateful.

as far as that flush draw goes you are dead wrong on that one bud. If there are 3 suited cards on the flop I have a 35% chance of making my flush, now you math guys can figure the odds out better than i can. because if you raise me I might even reraise. now you have to think did he make his flush or not. I have to many outs to make my flush to go away in this case i think im a 2to1 dog in this case or something like that. If I did reraise what would you hace done just called.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EricE

You are arguing your case a lot. Let’s backup a second. First, admit that these fishy tables can be beaten. I know because I do well at loose tables. I raise to 5xbb and I get 5 callers….that’s a loose table…and I do well at them. It just takes a different style. Will you admit that they can be beaten or are you arguing that it cannot be beaten?

---

Where abouts do you find games with 5 callers of 5xbb bets? That I would like to play...

Thing is, as easy as it is to beat, the games are very boring...

1. Learn to fold when may be beat, that is the key to making money, not getting it all in AA vs KK.
2. Fish are players who make bad decisions, calling preflop with QJ is in somecases a fish play, in others it is at the least a decent call.
If you played me im quite sure you'd rant at some of the cards i call you with, but if i know you cant find the fold button i'll continue to do it and make money from you. Text book works, but remember it can be countered.

I still havn't figured out the point of this thread, but I'm going to take a stab at it.

Online games are harder to beat because the players are worse? Playing against better opponents allows a player to become more consistently successful?

*confused*