How high of stakes would you play to sit with a fish? {oops}

[mcatdog]

The other night one of the biggest fish I've ever seen was playing the medium-stakes games on PokerStars and I was following him around trying to get his money before someone else did. Here is an example of how bad he was.

PokerStars GAME #6927358007: HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($1/$2) - 2006/11/07 - 06:39:12 (ET)
Table 'Bali' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: mcatdog ($197 in chips)
Seat 2: Maniac2006 ($118 in chips)
Seat 3: carrotsnake ($209.80 in chips)
Seat 4: kermit31 ($35.75 in chips)
Seat 5: FilthyLarry ($235.45 in chips)
Seat 6: bigtimin ($261.65 in chips)
Maniac2006: posts small blind $1
carrotsnake: posts big blind $2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to mcatdog [Qc Ac]
kermit31: calls $2
FilthyLarry: folds
bigtimin: calls $2
mcatdog: raises $10 to $12
Maniac2006: folds
carrotsnake: folds
kermit31: calls $10
bigtimin: folds
*** FLOP *** [8c 7s 3c]
kermit31: checks
mcatdog: bets $24
kermit31: calls $23.75 and is all-in
*** TURN *** [8c 7s 3c] [8d]
*** RIVER *** [8c 7s 3c 8d] [6s]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
kermit31: shows [6c Qd] (two pair, Eights and Sixes)
mcatdog: mucks hand
kermit31 collected $73.50 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $76.50 | Rake $3
Board [8c 7s 3c 8d 6s]
Seat 1: mcatdog (button) mucked [Qc Ac]
Seat 2: Maniac2006 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: carrotsnake (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: kermit31 showed [6c Qd] and won ($73.50) with two pair, Eights and Sixes
Seat 5: FilthyLarry folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: bigtimin folded before Flop

Anyway, he sucked out a couple more times and eventually had $300 which he took to 400NL, so I followed him there even though my main game is 200NL. I didn't get a chance to play any pots with him before he doubled up again and sat down with $650 at a 1000NL table! I could have joined the waiting list for this table, but the other people at the table were Lyric and a couple of other sharks who multi-table 1000NL. I wasn't sure whether the chance of getting that easy $650 was outweighed by the edge that the regulars at 1000NL have over me, or not. I decided not to join the table.

It turned out not to matter because the other 5 players stuck around until he busted shortly thereafter, but my question is, would I still be +EV at a 6-handed table where one player was this bad and the rest of the players were anywhere from solid to very good? How high above your normal stakes would you play in order to sit with a whale like this? Is it worth taking shots like this every once in awhile even though I'm not even remotely close to being bankrolled to play 1000NL on a regular basis?

---

{I went to hit quote (but hit edit obviously) on this post, and deleted some stuff, responded, only to realize that I changed the original post instead of making my own. I hit back a few times and got what I THINK is the original post, probably minus all the hyperlinks, so hopefully everything is all grand now. Sorrrrrrrrry. - Lukie}

[bearcats05]

if you can take the loss if he sucks out on you for 650 sure. but you will have to play really tight against everyone else and probably play like a weak tight pussy. besides against him.

[mcatdog]

but you will have to play really tight against everyone else and probably play like a weak tight pussy. besides against him.

Why wouldn't I want to play the best poker that I know how to against the other guys. If I play bad on purpose against them I'm not sure I'll have an edge in the game at all despite the fish being there.

[bearcats05]

because u will want to protect your br. and just not really play hands against them unless they are really premium. you are there to go after the fish. your not there to go for an edge risking that much of your roll you were there to go after the fish and stay out of the way of the other guys without premium hands unless you are comfortable trying to play your best poker for that much of your roll

[andy-akb]

Depends on how bad Im tilting. If it were a 6max table Id be chasing a fish to, Id be much more careful and probably only go up 1 level. However, if I were steaming and the fish was berating me, I wouldnt have a problem sitting at a 3/6 or 5/10 HU table. Smart? Ehhh, I would have an edge but the variance is killer so no, probably not smart. At a full table though Id be very careful, your edge wont be as great and you arent going to be able to only play against the fish.

[johnny_fish]

I'd take a 10K 60/40 but I'm a gamb00ler.

[dpe8598]

Sure play the table, but only if your BR allows and only if you feel like gambling. If your BR doesnt allow it, I think you know the answer.

[Lukie]

It turned out not to matter because the other 5 players stuck around until he busted shortly thereafter, but my question is, would I still be +EV at a 6-handed table where one player was this bad and the rest of the players were anywhere from solid to very good? How high above your normal stakes would you play in order to sit with a whale like this? Is it worth taking shots like this every once in awhile even though I'm not even remotely close to being bankrolled to play 1000NL on a regular basis?

depends on how good you are, short answer though, yes (or the answer should be yes). Then again, it really depends on your bankroll, and my guess is that it probably wouldn't be worth going up 5x in stakes to sit with a mega-whale. I could be wrong though.

FWIW, I think Lyric is vastly overrated. I don't think he is bad (actually from my limited play with him, I do), but he is very easy to push around. I am down in the 5/10 game and have been pushed around in some spots, spewed in other spots, and ran bad in others. One consistent though is I could always count on Lyric to be dead money...

[Genitruc]

I think I d be willing to play any game where I had 10 buy ins vs a mega-fish

[DaNutsInYoEye]

This is an interesting question considering that there are 4 other players at the table that you consider better than yourself. Does one donator really offset the disadvantage you're at against the rest of the table?

I don't think it does because of the fact that you'd be playing in a more aggressive game against better opponents and for more money than you're comfortable with. Assuming that the rest of the table is composed of solid players, they're going to notice very quickly that your mark is a fish. They'll probably peg him as that even before he plays a hand since he's buying in for an odd amount. They're going to try and isolate him and you could very well find yourself caught in the middle.

HU or even 3-4 handed I would probably play. In a full 6-max table I don't think it's worth it.

[melinda27]

i'd play as high as i could where losing a couple of buy ins wouldnt effect my bankroll.

[WhooFleuryScores]

I would play as high as NL500..........past that and I am playing with fate......

[mcatdog]

Good post Nuts, that was pretty much my reasoning for deciding not to play. Interesting that some of the posts in this thread advise me to sit down and play weak-tight (except against the fish) when IMO that's exactly the strategy that would arguably make me a loser in this game. On the other hand I'm not confident enough in my ability or my bankroll to play back at these guys without a hand.

[sejje]

This is an interesting question considering that there are 4 other players at the table that you consider better than yourself. Does one donator really offset the disadvantage you're at against the rest of the table?

I think so. Because we're not playing the four other players, we're playing the one mark. I don't think it would be extremely hard to isolate this guy, especially if we have good position on him.

Long story short, we're not playing big pots with anyone but the mark. The other four players are basically just stealing our blinds in the meantime.