Playing Bad Players

I've been playing on Party for the last year or so playing both SNG's and Ring games. I have learned a tremendous amount about poker through constant playing, reading this forum, and reading all the great books on poker. Given that I don't have a huge bankroll to work with, I am playing mostly lower stakes such as NL $25 rings and either 5+1 or 10+1 SNG's. I have played enough to know when I cause my own destruction and when bad players suck out on me. I have had just a tremendous amount of these suck outs lately and am getting really discouraged. I also realize that these sort of players will always lose in the long run, but I guess what I'm looking for comment-wise is...

I know I can eventually overcome the bad plays of one or two bad players, but how do good players fair overall against the entire sum of bad players and all of their suck outs?

And, any additional hints/comments to get out of this discouraging slump.

Thanks for everyone's help, this is my first post! (hope it didn't get too long)

Mark

[J. Sawyer]

In the long run they win.

Get into the long run (play many many hands)

You mean in the long run, the good players will win?

[cobalt]

To be honest. I think it's harder to play against bad players online (they're cake in live poker).

Whenever I'm up against a decent/good player, they will play a certain way and you can slowly get a read on them.

Bad players play any hand that they "feel lucky with". They can get dealt 83os and "feel" it and somehow totally suckout on you with a set of runner runner 3's.

Bad players don't have tells simply because they don't know wtf they're doing in the first place. There are less and less of these players as you go up in stakes because bad players do lose in the long run, that's why they prefer micro limits. Cause they play all day on $5.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ QUOTE ]
To be honest. I think it's harder to play against bad players online (they're cake in live poker).

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. This is a common sentiment amongst new players and losing players. It demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding of the game.

Until you understand why, you should stick to nano-limits. You will lose less that way.

[Equal]

Realize that against bad players you will win a smaller % of pots than against good players. This is simply because bad players play too many hands and go to far with them compared to better players.

Although you will win a smaller percentage of pots against bad players, this is more than made up by the fact that any pots you do win against bad players will be much larger than against good players.

So against bad players you have a seemingly contradictory situation in which you'll win less pots, but win more money.

This fact often frustrates the inexperienced player.

Thanks for that post. That was very helpful. I appreciate these type. To anybody else thinking of replying, please no negative comments in this thread.

[mattrado]

As a moderately experienced poker player, my two best pieces of advice are:

1. Don't get frustrated, everyone has downswings. You will have swings where the cards will hit for bad players over and over against you. You will lose money. It will be frustrating as hell. You MUST keep playing a solid game. If you do, you will win IN THE LONG RUN. If you don't, you will lose.

2. When you lose big pots, or multiple hands to the same player, or have a losing session, go back and re-examine your play. Make sure you're not getting frustrated and playing bad hands. Make sure you're making good decisions that if made hundreds of times, would make you the winner. You see many people on these forums posting hands and getting advice on their play. Examining your play is key.

Everyone who plays poker wins hands all the time, even the bad players (that's why they play). The best players know how to ALWAYS put themselves in situations with the highest winning potential (+EV). HOWEVER, this is all based on odds and chance, and you don't always win in the moment.

best of luck,
Matt

[cobalt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest. I think it's harder to play against bad players online (they're cake in live poker).

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. This is a common sentiment amongst new players and losing players. It demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding of the game.

Until you understand why, you should stick to nano-limits. You will lose less that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

We probably have a different definition of what a "bad player" is.

There are differences between fish, maniacs and bad players.
Fish are bad players in a good way - meaning that they are great for taking chips from. They're new to poker and only have a basic knowledge of the game.

Maniacs are bad players in a long term good way - meaning that over time, they really lose big, and you can win big off of them.

Bad players are just bad players - they basically don't know anything, they're not maniacs/loose, they simply have no clue what their hand means and how to bet it. They are completely random. They've probably seen celebrity poker once and think they know how to play poker.

Not saying that I'm a great poker player, but there are many players out there that are totally oblivious. And they are the hardest players to play against.

[UATrewqaz]

The more idiots you have at the table the better hand it will take tow in typically. When you have like 6 people going to showdown someone will make something better than say top pair almost always.

The way to play the maximum EV value poker against a table full of morons would be to play very tight, raise preflop with powerful hands (pot equity, SSHE) and to limp in with good drawing hands (implied odds, SSHE). Throw your hand away pretty quickly if you don't make anythign on thef lop and the times you do make something (a made hand, a great draw) the pot will be big and pay you off big times. In other words you'll be winning less pots but the ones you win will be huge. They'll all be trading money back and forth because they chase every pot.

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]

Not saying that I'm a great poker player, but there are many players out there that are totally oblivious. And they are the hardest players to play against.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely wrong. It is extraordinarily easy to beat a player who is totally oblivious; in fact, it is more profitable to play against them than any other type of player. To greatly simplify it, just value bet your marginal and good hands to death, and don't bother trying to read them or bluff.

[47outs]

[ QUOTE ]
but how do good players fair overall against the entire sum of bad players and all of their suck outs?


[/ QUOTE ]

Good players fair quite well. The more bad players, the more money they make.


outs

It hurts to get sucked out, but it happens. Those guys desperately calling with their bottom pair hoping to hit their kicker w/ much pressure are who you want in the game. The percentages will catch up to them eventually. They can't always hit when they are 3-1 dogs.

About two weeks ago, I played in a NL game where this guy played EVERY hand and was winning. He left after a few hours up $1k. When someone asked why he is playing every hand, he replied with "It's working for me." What happened this week? He dropped 1.4k.

[MicroBob]

Also - many many players who get sucked-out on from the 'bad' players fail to look at their own play and determine whether they were playing the hand ideally to begin with.
Obviously this shold be your primary concern.
Many many people assume that they play their hands 'pretty well' or 'correctly' but most actually do not.

Whether it be a hand you won...or a hand you took a bad-beat on...you might not have played it that great even though you think you did.
It is difficult to convince players of this until they post actual stats and/or hand-histories and get real feedback.


I am thinking about the recent post in the internet-forum where somebody posted that their stats were 'pretty much normal' during his bad streak and then listed a bunch of p-tracker numbers that indicated that he was quite obviously weak-tight and NOT 'pretty much normal' (VP-13).

[TheBlueMonster]

I'm gonna have to agree with Milo on this. No matter your definition of bad player, you want them in your game.

[Online247]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest. I think it's harder to play against bad players online (they're cake in live poker).

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. This is a common sentiment amongst new players and losing players. It demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding of the game.

Until you understand why, you should stick to nano-limits. You will lose less that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

We probably have a different definition of what a "bad player" is.

There are differences between fish, maniacs and bad players.
Fish are bad players in a good way - meaning that they are great for taking chips from. They're new to poker and only have a basic knowledge of the game.

Maniacs are bad players in a long term good way - meaning that over time, they really lose big, and you can win big off of them.

Bad players are just bad players - they basically don't know anything, they're not maniacs/loose, they simply have no clue what their hand means and how to bet it. They are completely random. They've probably seen celebrity poker once and think they know how to play poker.

Not saying that I'm a great poker player, but there are many players out there that are totally oblivious. And they are the hardest players to play against.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stick around long enough and you'll realize how misguided your judgement is.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
It hurts to get sucked out, but it happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should not be true.

It should either feel good or nothing to get sucked out on, preferably nothing, and the more the better. They can't last forever. (and don't)

I'm too tired to go into it much further now, but there are tilt threads all over the board where you can see what I mean.

Look for bankroll management too.

[[censored]]

Honestly if you are not winning online you are doing something wrong. Remember you not only have to be better than the bad players but also better than an degree that allows you to overcome the rake.

You need to keep playing and work on getting better. bottom line.

take comfort in the fact that there have been many many now winning players who felt this way when they first got started.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

This should not be true.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree.
Many a night I have played against a crazy drunk or two who had zero clue what they were doing yet were still able to take my money with their runner-runner T3o 2-pair.

I do admit that it started to bother me back in January when I wasn't playing well in my attempt at 15/30 and I was sweating the money I was losing a bit.

My remedy?? To step down in limits where losing a hand or three (or five or ten) to bad players would be something I could easily not care about because I knew I was at an advantage in the long-run.

So I have recommended to some players to play at a limit where the losses don't mean as much to you...but have since come to learn that it sometimes isn't just a matter of the monetary set-back but is also just a competitive drive where one feels they deserve to win since they KNOW they are playing better than the idiot who is beating them.

If this is where you're coming from then you have to learn to take a long-term view and KNOW that playing well will get you the money in the long-run.


However, I stick to my guns on my original point as well.
Almost ALL losing players blame their opponents and bad-luck for the reason they are losing.
But after enough hands it should be obvious that the only reason for one's losses is one's own inferior play. Yet even AFTER achieving a significant number of hands most players will CONTINUE to blame anything but themselves (usually blaming bad players, unlucky cards, etc etc).

[Rascal]

Everyone has bad downswings where they are sucked out on never catch flops... Bad players are superb love em.. U need to destroy their pot odds. Make calling / drawing expensive and most of all a bad decision. When they do draw out say 'well played' encourage them to do it again. Most of all so they stay on ur table and u can get ur money back. On the other hand bad players usually give u odds to draw on them eg slowin playin their top2pair on flop to ur 4 card flush/str8 draw. Then they like to call big river bets. Learn ur odds tighten up be aggressive, try and sit to the left of them so they act first. Get a few books under ur belt eg super system.

[dondarias]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean in the long run, the good players will win?

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely this is the definition of a good player. If in the long run the bad players won they would be the good players.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
This should not be true.

It should either feel good or nothing to get sucked out on, preferably nothing, and the more the better.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is easier said than done. It can take a long while for one to finally accept this. Some never get to that point. It's opposite of one's natural reaction to losing shortterm. Usually, it's after they've just gone through a very bad run and came out of it that helps one realize the swing of the game. It should be the goal to attain that type of thinking. It's not easy for most players.

b

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
This is easier said than done. It can take a long while for one to finally accept this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never meant to say that it was easy.

I've been playing seriously for 6 years now, always trying to improve and still have my moments when I have to quit due to tilt.

It helps to understand what you're trying to do though. I just wanted to put it back in perspective.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest. I think it's harder to play against bad players online (they're cake in live poker).

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. This is a common sentiment amongst new players and losing players. It demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding of the game.

Until you understand why, you should stick to nano-limits. You will lose less that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

We probably have a different definition of what a "bad player" is.

There are differences between fish, maniacs and bad players.
Fish are bad players in a good way - meaning that they are great for taking chips from. They're new to poker and only have a basic knowledge of the game.

Maniacs are bad players in a long term good way - meaning that over time, they really lose big, and you can win big off of them.

Bad players are just bad players - they basically don't know anything, they're not maniacs/loose, they simply have no clue what their hand means and how to bet it. They are completely random. They've probably seen celebrity poker once and think they know how to play poker.

Not saying that I'm a great poker player, but there are many players out there that are totally oblivious. And they are the hardest players to play against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you don't take offense to this, becauase it really is meant to be instructive. Big Bait Slim is completely right, and you are completely wrong. And your reasoning, as BBS has said, does illustrate a fundamental misconception about poker that many newer players have. Everything in poker is long term. If you were to play against someone who was so bad as to make his actions almost completely "random." That would be a goldmine long term +EV situation. I've got a texas holdem game on my cell phone. As near as I can tell, the AI for it is basically just completely random, what the AI decides to do has nothing with what cards are being dealt. I beat this AI consistently and easily.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
Not saying that I'm a great poker player, but there are many players out there that are totally oblivious. And they are the hardest players to play against.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, completely, 100% dead wrong. There is a fundamental logical flaw in this statement. If random players were the hardest to play against, then you should make random plays. Yet you don't, I assume. Why? Because it is more profitable to make deliberately good plays. Players that are clueless are trivially easy to play against. They call down with bottom pair. They raise in EP with 72o. If you play good poker, you should clean up against this random play. Can you bluff a random player -- NO. Will they suck out on you -- yes. Will they sometimes make you lose money you wouldn't have lost if they had made "correct" plays - yes. Will you win more from them in the long run than from people who know somewhat what they are doing, but make some bad decisions? (Like people who are somewhat loose PF, but will fold 72o or who know to always raise with AA, etc.) -- YES!

Here is a short follow up question to my earlier post. Where, what, and when do most of you play? And how much do bad players affect you in each of those times/games?

Thanks again, for all the help so far, its been great!

[utmt40]

Just keep on keepin on...by that I mean don't let someone's bad play keep you down. Suck outs are going to happen. I used to get so pissed when that happened but now I have played so many hands and its happened so many times it doesn't bother me anymore. I also go back and look at how I played the hand and what I could have done differently i.e. (Poker Tracker). If you don't have Poker Tracker, I and several others here will tell you to get it. The main thing is stay confident and play good hands not marginal ones and that will also help with variance.

[MicroBob]

I play mostly on party.
usually 5/10 in the evenings.

bad players affect me very much in that they are the primary donators to my increasing bankroll.
Without these bad players my win-rate would be significantly less.

When there aren't enough bad players at a given table then I will get up and leave to seek out the lousy players who I know are waiting for me on other tables.
I'm always seeking out bad players. They are always on my mind. They affect me A LOT because I simply love them so.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest. I think it's harder to play against bad players online (they're cake in live poker).

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. This is a common sentiment amongst new players and losing players. It demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding of the game.

Until you understand why, you should stick to nano-limits. You will lose less that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right of course, Milo. You will definitely make more money from bad players. There is some truth to what the OP says, though, decent (not really good, but not completely clueless, either) players are easier to read. Calling stations and maniacs are harder to read. You just have to consistently play better cards and get your money in with the best of it, and let the long run work for you. This is more profitable, but also higher variance than playing the tighter, predictable players. Really ggod playere, though, when playing against other good players, will not be predictable. They will semi-bluff, bluff, check-raise and slowplay just enough to make it quit difficult to know where you stand.

A note to the OP: Don't dwell on the bad beats. Bad beats are not why you are losing (or not winning as much as you could be) Suckouts are memorable, and they can cost you a lot of money at once, but they happen to everybody, all the time. What really makes the differnece between winning and losing, or between winning small and winning big, are the extra bets you get in with the best of it, and the bets you save with the worst of it. This is what you need to be concentrating on, not the bad beats.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest. I think it's harder to play against bad players online (they're cake in live poker).

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. This is a common sentiment amongst new players and losing players. It demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding of the game.

Until you understand why, you should stick to nano-limits. You will lose less that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right of course, Milo. You will definitely make more money from bad players. There is some truth to what the OP says, though, decent (not really good, but not completely clueless, either) players are easier to read. Calling stations and maniacs are harder to read. You just have to consistently play better cards and get your money in with the best of it, and let the long run work for you. This is more profitable, but also higher variance than playing the tighter, predictable players. Really ggod playere, though, when playing against other good players, will not be predictable. They will semi-bluff, bluff, check-raise and slowplay just enough to make it quit difficult to know where you stand.

A note to the OP: Don't dwell on the bad beats. Bad beats are not why you are losing (or not winning as much as you could be) Suckouts are memorable, and they can cost you a lot of money at once, but they happen to everybody, all the time. What really makes the differnece between winning and losing, or between winning small and winning big, are the extra bets you get in with the best of it, and the bets you save with the worst of it. This is what you need to be concentrating on, not the bad beats.

[/ QUOTE ]

A table where nobody has a bad beat put on them is a TERRIBLE table to play at.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest. I think it's harder to play against bad players online (they're cake in live poker).

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. This is a common sentiment amongst new players and losing players. It demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding of the game.

Until you understand why, you should stick to nano-limits. You will lose less that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

We probably have a different definition of what a "bad player" is.

There are differences between fish, maniacs and bad players.
Fish are bad players in a good way - meaning that they are great for taking chips from. They're new to poker and only have a basic knowledge of the game.

Maniacs are bad players in a long term good way - meaning that over time, they really lose big, and you can win big off of them.

Bad players are just bad players - they basically don't know anything, they're not maniacs/loose, they simply have no clue what their hand means and how to bet it. They are completely random. They've probably seen celebrity poker once and think they know how to play poker.

Not saying that I'm a great poker player, but there are many players out there that are totally oblivious. And they are the hardest players to play against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love playing against all of the above.

Against the oblivious, you value bet more, call down more.

[smokingrobot]

i had a similar complaint with my friends who suddenly decided to start a poker game at there house.

many nights i would get pissed off because i "knew" i was better, yet how can i win when there are 6 to 8 people who will suck out on me every hand?!

i soon realized the error in that thought. the most important thing i reorganized was my pre flop play. i started realizing where i was playing marginal hands out of position, or when i pushed 4-flushes to no end. in essence, i realized that i was merely playing more like them and less like a better player.

i'd say for starters, reorganize your preflop play. you may have to even tighten up against them too. fold your overcards to a low board because inevitably, a poor player has that 84o in his hand and you are drawing dead or about to be. Realize that good players win hands, and not necessarily good cards (i would always get so upset when my AKs that i waited 20 orbits to get loses to a J3 flush because i would bet the [censored] out of it thinking they would fold.

their "random" holdings will actually become quite easy to deal with.

after i spent a bunch of time reading books and forum posts, (and here comes the bragging), and took 9 people out in 60 minutes (it was 10 handed NL with raises in blinds every time someone lost all their chips. we all start with 10 bucks and .25/.50 blinds. I didnt get to set the rules for this either).

Either way, if you are losing against the random bad players, you are over estimating your game.

Edit:

They will still suck out on you from time to time, but hey, fold those hands with 2 cards to come. Also, they arent bluffing as much as you think either. That's another thing i always used to think. Nobody pays the Detective in poker.

It will be some time before your post flop play catches up enough to be able to loosen up on your preflop standards.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
i had a similar complaint with my friends who suddenly decided to start a poker game at there house.

many nights i would get pissed off because i "knew" i was better, yet how can i win when there are 6 to 8 people who will suck out on me every hand?!

i soon realized the error in that thought. the most important thing i reorganized was my pre flop play. i started realizing where i was playing marginal hands out of position, or when i pushed 4-flushes to no end. in essence, i realized that i was merely playing more like them and less like a better player.

i'd say for starters, reorganize your preflop play. you may have to even tighten up against them too. fold your overcards to a low board because inevitably, a poor player has that 84o in his hand and you are drawing dead or about to be. Realize that good players win hands, and not necessarily good cards (i would always get so upset when my AKs that i waited 20 orbits to get loses to a J3 flush because i would bet the [censored] out of it thinking they would fold.

their "random" holdings will actually become quite easy to deal with.

after i spent a bunch of time reading books and forum posts, (and here comes the bragging), and took 9 people out in 60 minutes (it was 10 handed NL with raises in blinds every time someone lost all their chips. we all start with 10 bucks and .25/.50 blinds. I didnt get to set the rules for this either).

Either way, if you are losing against the random bad players, you are over estimating your game.

Edit:

They will still suck out on you from time to time, but hey, fold those hands with 2 cards to come. Also, they arent bluffing as much as you think either. That's another thing i always used to think. Nobody pays the Detective in poker.

It will be some time before your post flop play catches up enough to be able to loosen up on your preflop standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against bad players postflop play is more important than preflop play. And its not even close.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i had a similar complaint with my friends who suddenly decided to start a poker game at there house.

many nights i would get pissed off because i "knew" i was better, yet how can i win when there are 6 to 8 people who will suck out on me every hand?!

i soon realized the error in that thought. the most important thing i reorganized was my pre flop play. i started realizing where i was playing marginal hands out of position, or when i pushed 4-flushes to no end. in essence, i realized that i was merely playing more like them and less like a better player.

i'd say for starters, reorganize your preflop play. you may have to even tighten up against them too. fold your overcards to a low board because inevitably, a poor player has that 84o in his hand and you are drawing dead or about to be. Realize that good players win hands, and not necessarily good cards (i would always get so upset when my AKs that i waited 20 orbits to get loses to a J3 flush because i would bet the [censored] out of it thinking they would fold.

their "random" holdings will actually become quite easy to deal with.

after i spent a bunch of time reading books and forum posts, (and here comes the bragging), and took 9 people out in 60 minutes (it was 10 handed NL with raises in blinds every time someone lost all their chips. we all start with 10 bucks and .25/.50 blinds. I didnt get to set the rules for this either).

Either way, if you are losing against the random bad players, you are over estimating your game.

Edit:

They will still suck out on you from time to time, but hey, fold those hands with 2 cards to come. Also, they arent bluffing as much as you think either. That's another thing i always used to think. Nobody pays the Detective in poker.

It will be some time before your post flop play catches up enough to be able to loosen up on your preflop standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against bad players postflop play is more important than preflop play. And its not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]


Can you go into a little more detail about this last part please.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
i started realizing where i was playing marginal hands out of position, or when i pushed 4-flushes to no end.

[/ QUOTE ]



Is there something wrong with pushing a 4-flush?


[ QUOTE ]
fold your overcards to a low board because inevitably, a poor player has that 84o in his hand and you are drawing dead or about to be.

[/ QUOTE ]



folding your over-cards on a low, ragged board when you are getting adequate pot-odds just because you are afraid that SOMEONE has hit a random 2-pair is a really bad idea.


[ QUOTE ]
because i would bet the [censored] out of it thinking they would fold

[/ QUOTE ]


Sounds to me as though your opponents weren't exactly sucking-out on you as much as you were also playing a bit tilt-ish and simply beating yourself.


It also sounds like you're playing more NL than limit and I'm not exactly a great NL player.
But I strongly disagree with some of your ideas here.


Also - as the other poster stated...your post-flop play is WAY more important.