'partypoker is hard to make money'

[Meatmaw]

A friend of mine was telling me how her roomie's boyfriend quit his job to play poker online, flying to vegas, etc and runs a gaming site. One thing she mentioned was that he said:

"It's hard to make money at Partypoker because a lot of beginners play unpredictably. He only plays high stakes."

I laughed at this initially, but then it got me thinking. I don't know if this pertains to limit, NL, SNG, ring, or all, but do you guys feel that completely unpredictable bad players might be tougher profit than perhaps 1 level up at predictably weak or some other breed of player? Was this guy alluding to players at Party just being *so* bad that it was more profitable against more informed amateur players? What do you think?

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
A friend of mine was telling me how her roomie's boyfriend quit his job to play poker online, flying to vegas, etc and runs a gaming site. One thing she mentioned was that he said:

"It's hard to make money at Partypoker because a lot of beginners play unpredictably. He only plays high stakes."

I laughed at this initially, but then it got me thinking. I don't know if this pertains to limit, NL, SNG, ring, or all, but do you guys feel that completely unpredictable bad players might be tougher profit than perhaps 1 level up at predictably weak or some other breed of player? Was this guy alluding to players at Party just being *so* bad that it was more profitable against more informed amateur players? What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the most common myths in poker. "If only players respected my raises I would win". That is of course nonsense. If you can't beat players who constantly make mistakes, who are you going to beat.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
A friend of mine was telling me how her roomie's boyfriend quit his job to play poker online, flying to vegas, etc and runs a gaming site. One thing she mentioned was that he said:

"It's hard to make money at Partypoker because a lot of beginners play unpredictably. He only plays high stakes."

I laughed at this initially, but then it got me thinking. I don't know if this pertains to limit, NL, SNG, ring, or all, but do you guys feel that completely unpredictable bad players might be tougher profit than perhaps 1 level up at predictably weak or some other breed of player? Was this guy alluding to players at Party just being *so* bad that it was more profitable against more informed amateur players? What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think theres a good chance your friend will be broke soon.

[Meatmaw]

yes, I know that every mistake is effective cash in your pocket in the long run, but my question was more geared towards whether exploiting those mistakes was easier against slightly more informed (or even moderately more informed) players such that one might observe it being more profitable in a less beginner (and possibly more predictable) field.

But I was skeptical of it as the thoughts came out, so it's no surprise if it isn't.

[gumpzilla]

This is a popular question. It is also a popular question for people here to get snobby on.

Here's my answer: better players should be harder to make money against because they have fewer weaknesses to exploit, usually, and don't pay you off with utter crap. That said, if your friend isn't necessarily a good player, it might be that he has a style that will perform much better against tighter opposition than looser opposition, AND doesn't know how to adjust his style to deal with the fishies. But, the tight/loose dichotomy isn't the same thing as better/worse, though there's a strong correlation at low levels. Frequently people talk about "better" players when what they really mean is tighter players.

If your friend could adjust properly, then the fishy types who will call down with virtually nothing should be a better source of profit in the long term than people who play more solid poker.

[dmmikkel]

Some players may only be able to beat a game with certain players, while the best will be able to adapt to his opponents.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Was this guy alluding to players at Party just being *so* bad that it was more profitable against more informed amateur players? What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stare at this over and over and over.

I know where you're going with this. There's two answers that will give you solace.

1) If you can't beat the fish, who can you beat?
2) Since when is it more profitable to play with better players?

Another way to look at this is to apply some EV analysis to skill levels

EV - Highest level: Play the fish
EV - 2nd Highest level: Play the fish who think they know something (like, should I fold my AA here?).

[ QUOTE ]
I think theres a good chance your friend will be broke soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the odds were right, I might take this bet.

[beeyjay]

if you cross your eyes too much theyll stay that way.

My comment is closer to the truth than this skeez's.

[JP Rocks]

I am a walking example of that. I have no problem on the UB and PS $11's- the play there isnt spectacular, but there is room to try tricky moves. However, I am a spectacular failure on Party $11's because I dont play the party game. I'm sure (or at least like to think so) that I could beat party games if I just cut the fluff out of my game, any the next time I go broke in one of my two accounts, I might try that.

Essentially, poor players are "hard" to play against if you dont know they are there, or dont react to them being there. If you play them properly, (I'm sure) they can be great cash cows...

[microbet]

I agree.

There is a difference between what is easiest and what is most profitable too.

A table full of absolute rocks is extremely easy to play. It may not be as profitable as a table full of crazies, but it is a lot easier.

[Scuba Chuck]

Come on guys, if you can't beat poor players consistently (don't read all the time), then you are the poor player.

You're right. At a tight table (implied good players), a laggy style could be very profitable. That doesn't mean that he's a better player. He has just learned that his laggy style (likely fishy) works well on a tight table. His refusal to adjust to how to play against the fish reflects his poker abilities, IMO. Which are limited.

[Blarg]

You need a wider, but shallower, skill set to beat absolute beginners. At higher levels, people fall into recognizable patterns of play more. You can take advantage of that, but then you'll have to weigh that against their ability to play at a much better level, to decode your play better, and to change their playstyle in a more calculated way to throw you off course.

It's possible to have better results at higher levels if you bump into just the right set of conditions to fit your particular style, but that's a lot of if's to pile together and to sustain. In general, it's easier to beat bad players than good ones, and if you move up to try to beat good players before you're able to beat bad ones, your game will be weaker than it should be, and sooner or later people will exploit you for it, and probably bust you right back down to the lower levels.

All in all, it's better to learn to beat the lower levels to round out your game than to try to jump around levels to find just the right situation, which may change just as soon as a single player leaves the table or joins it.

[canis582]

Need I say more?

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $0.5 BB (6 max, 4 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

saw flop|<font color="#C00000">saw showdown</font>

<font color="#C00000">UTG ($60.85)</font>
<font color="#C00000">Hero ($48.25)</font>
SB ($53.95)
BB ($23.6)

Preflop: Hero is Button with T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises to $2</font>, Hero calls $2, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB calls $1.50.

Flop: ($6.25) 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif, T/images/graemlins/club.gif, 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG bets $3</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $8</font>, BB folds, <font color="#CC3333">UTG raises to $20</font>, Hero calls $12.

Turn: ($46.25) 5/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">UTG bets $38.85 (All-In)</font>, Hero calls $26.25 (All-In).

River: ($111.35) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 2 all-in)</font>

Final Pot: $111.35

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
UTG has 9c 9d (two pair, nines and sixes).
Hero has Td Qd (two pair, tens and sixes).
Outcome: Hero wins $98.75. UTG wins $12.60. </font>

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on guys, if you can't beat poor players consistently (don't read all the time), then you are the poor player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if people are arguing with this. If you're a strong, adaptive player, then the fishiest of the fishy, who'll call you down with underpairs to the board, etc., is going to be the way to go for pure profit. If you prefer a somewhat less profitable but probably also smaller variance game, sitting with a table that's way too tight isn't so bad, either. After all, isn't that why we can win at SNGs?

But let's say you're not a very good, thoughtful player. You're just okay. Let's say you bluff too much. If you sit down at a rock garden, you're much likelier to end up happy than sitting at the table where your style is going to get you creamed.

My point is just that people reject these kinds of questions out of hand, when I think there is actually some reason to believe that it is possible that some people really do perform better in these situations.

[gumpzilla]

Unless this guy has shown you some seriously maniacal behavior before, I think substantially less of your play in this hand than his.

[canis582]

Hes a Maniac a Maniac a Mannnniac thats for sure. and hes raising like hes never raised before.

[jah0550]

huh? Dont you want to play against idiotic players? They are the ones that give you money...oh yeah I forgot, fish don't know how to play the "correct way." Tell your rommie's boyfriend to go back to his job, because he is a fish himself. Why wouldn't anyone want to play with an entire table of fish?

[ilya]

I think Barry Greenstein has a profile of your friend. He rated him an "8" against strong players, but only a "5" against weak players. So it looks like your friend knows what he's doing!

[flyby4553]

Saying you'd rather play against better players (to make money obviously) is like saying you'd rather bet on your favorite college football team playing against the Patriots as opposed to your old high school team.
You certainly need to play differently in these sorts of low limit/buy in games, but that doesnt make them harder to beat. If you cant adjust and just play solid hands for a profit its likely your only going to make money at a higher limit if your on a huge rush.

[raptor517]

i think judging from the way you both played yer hands, you are both awful. he could make the judgment that you should have folded to the 12 dollar reraise, and say that YOU cant fold a hand. holla

[Iamafish]

I don't like it either.

But anyway, I think a lot of people are missing one of the key words that goes along with SOME of the BAD PLAYERS. It's the bad players that make us the money, ofcourse, but some of the bad players can break us. The maniacs, which are the worst, but have a wide range and tricky hand selection, and are LAG, are the 'bad' players you're talking about.

They ofcourse are much beatable than a 'good' player.

[valenzuela]

I think he meant the rake has a killer in low limit games so he prefers 10/20, this makes absolute sense to me, btw why did u ask it on this forum?

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's hard to make money at Partypoker because a lot of beginners play unpredictably. He only plays high stakes."

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes sense if the guy plays poker on auto-pilot. Before I took up poker, I was a chess player (not great, but better than average). Anyhoo, in chess, when you're playing against a "good" player, you can generally play your early game by the book because your opponent is expected to make the "correct" responding moves against it. Against a weak player, however, you can't really use your opening book to the letter because your opponent's maniacal play creates the necessity (or opportunity) to adjust and do things in response that make your position better. In this sense, because you have to actually use your brain to adjust your game so early, you could claim a weak opponent is more difficult to play...(perhaps this really means difficult as in annoying?). In reality, they're still much softer opponents and will always end up getting pwn3d.

The only real difference is, in poker, there's that element of chance that allows the fish to occasionally get lucky, thus compounding their "difficult"-ness. There's still no reason not to be able to beat them long term.

[Maulik]

[ QUOTE ]
Need I say more?

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $0.5 BB (6 max, 4 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

saw flop|<font color="#C00000">saw showdown</font>

<font color="#C00000">UTG ($60.85)</font>
<font color="#C00000">Hero ($48.25)</font>
SB ($53.95)
BB ($23.6)

Preflop: Hero is Button with T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises to $2</font>, Hero calls $2, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB calls $1.50.

Flop: ($6.25) 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif, T/images/graemlins/club.gif, 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG bets $3</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $8</font>, BB folds, <font color="#CC3333">UTG raises to $20</font>, Hero calls $12.

Turn: ($46.25) 5/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">UTG bets $38.85 (All-In)</font>, Hero calls $26.25 (All-In).

River: ($111.35) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 2 all-in)</font>

Final Pot: $111.35

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
UTG has 9c 9d (two pair, nines and sixes).
Hero has Td Qd (two pair, tens and sixes).
Outcome: Hero wins $98.75. UTG wins $12.60. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
i think judging from the way you both played yer hands, you are both awful. he could make the judgment that you should have folded to the 12 dollar reraise, and say that YOU cant fold a hand. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

The texture of this flop was rag rag ten. But two pair beats your hand, a set, etc. I agree with Raptor