Tighties (low content)

[Marquis]

Does anyone else find that the players who play the most hands on Party .5/1 all play the same way, and that is ultra-tight? When I sort my PT summary stats by hands played, I have to go pretty far down the list to find a player other than myself with an icon that isn't a mouse (using bison's ratings).

Does anyone have a theory as to why this might be?

[meanjean]

I find just the opposite...5-7 players every hand...people betting and calling with bottom pair or less...sometimes averaging 10BB per hand.

[davelin]

Those with the most hands in your Poker Tracker are most likely those people who play quite a bit and/or play quite seriously. It's not surprising that they tend to be tighties IMO.

[meanjean]

oh my bad...I have never done that with poker tracker. I thought you meant the average table

[Marquis]

It's just suprising that the people who play the most really aren't that good. Perhaps if they were better they'd move up. Or perhaps they are content making 2 BB/hour playing a style that's pretty simple to multi-table with.

[mack848]

I think that I am quite 'good' in the 50/1 game: I make 2BB/hour (at most, per table), yet I don't think I'm ready to move up yet.

Many of the players I come across regularly are TAA or SLAAs doing much the same as me.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
It's just suprising that the people who play the most really aren't that good. Perhaps if they were better they'd move up. Or perhaps they are content making 2 BB/hour playing a style that's pretty simple to multi-table with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean, isn't the style we all advocate here a tight-is-right style of play? The mouse icon is TP-A, meaning that you may not have enough of a sample size to accurately gauge their pre-flop statistic, meaning that some of these players may actually be Moneybags.

[Marquis]

I have 2K+ hands on all these players. They are not moneybags.

[Marquis]

I might say it's a sample size thing if it wasn't 25+ players all playing the same way. As a group, with plenty of hands to constitute a large enough sample, they are a single large mouse (a rat?), and separated from the group, each individual is still a mouse.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
I have 2K+ hands on all these players. They are not moneybags.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, well they don't play a wide range of hands pre-flop and they're aggressive with their made hands post-flop. Maybe they don't raise/re-raise with 99, TT, AJo, AJs, ATs, KQo. But they're probably better than 75% of the players out there.

Even with the SSH-style of play, I think one can only reasonably expect a winrate of 2-4BB/100 hands. So maybe they're towards the bottom of that range, but I'm not sure why you say they're not necessarily good players?

[Fiddler]

Maybe they are gamblers, who aren't really interested in learning to play good poker, who find they get the most time at the table by being tight.

[TwoShedsJackson]

Just had a look and indeed the top 50 or so players by hands played are all under 22% or so, apart from my favouite buddy on Party, who's 79.32% at 1064 hands.

[dfscott]

How do you select your tables? If you just jump on the first available table, you'll often run into tighter tables. The tables with all the fish usually have waiting lists (for obvious reasons).

[Marquis]

I typically sit down at the tables with the higher pot averages and that's where most of my database comes from.

[JDErickson]

I usually look for a 9 handed table with a medium pot size. This usually means a lot of loose passives. I then sit out a round or 2 to determine if the table is actually tight agressive.

Medium pot tables seem to do the best for me balancing fishiness vs variance.

[Marquis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have 2K+ hands on all these players. They are not moneybags.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, well they don't play a wide range of hands pre-flop and they're aggressive with their made hands post-flop. Maybe they don't raise/re-raise with 99, TT, AJo, AJs, ATs, KQo. But they're probably better than 75% of the players out there.

Even with the SSH-style of play, I think one can only reasonably expect a winrate of 2-4BB/100 hands. So maybe they're towards the bottom of that range, but I'm not sure why you say they're not necessarily good players?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say they stink, but they aren't as good as we are. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Do you really think 2-4 is the highest one could expect to maintain? I would think it'd be a little higher than that.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have 2K+ hands on all these players. They are not moneybags.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, well they don't play a wide range of hands pre-flop and they're aggressive with their made hands post-flop. Maybe they don't raise/re-raise with 99, TT, AJo, AJs, ATs, KQo. But they're probably better than 75% of the players out there.

Even with the SSH-style of play, I think one can only reasonably expect a winrate of 2-4BB/100 hands. So maybe they're towards the bottom of that range, but I'm not sure why you say they're not necessarily good players?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say they stink, but they aren't as good as we are. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Do you really think 2-4 is the highest one could expect to maintain? I would think it'd be a little higher than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

We ourselves probably not as good as we can be, but these players are probably doing decent and winning consistently. If they knew about 2+2 and SSH, they would probably try to apply those principles as well.

The winrate question seems to be a difficult one to answer. Depending on limit, when you play, which site you play on, it seems like winrates can range anywhere from 1BB to 5BB per 100 hands. With variance, who knows what a true winrate can look like on micro-levels.

[rewt75]

I played for about an hour on a couple of party .5/1 tables today at noon CST and it was the tightest game I think I've ever played. I rarely saw more than 3 people taking a flop and no one was playing crap hands. Must remember to play at night.

[jay1313]

Most of my multiple hand people are mice and rocks as well, I think they last longer and they understand the concept of AKs is much much better then T8o. But I also think they have a hard time being aggressive before they know what they have. How many times have we fired our chips into the pot with our AQs to be confronted with a flop of 456s or a rainbow of rags? When you raise pre-flop, you sometimes feel obligated to gun for it and perhaps look foolish turning over your AK to lose to a pair of 6's. The mouse, not having made a claim at the pot other then calling to see it, can quietly go away. Which works very very well for our style, but when they hang on, they just feed on our bets lol.

If we look at them closely we see the difference between the mouse and the money bag is the PFR. I am always cautious when a mouse cold calls me and especially if they hang around after the flop. Although they take money from me by their calling down often, they rarely re-raise. The mouse is a dangerous critter on the river. /images/graemlins/cool.gif