To like the fish or Not to like the fish ........(or do I suck?)

[Vespa]

Joe Tall posted in another Post:
[ QUOTE ]
First if you are only seeing 2 players to the flop with one of them defending his BB, I think you can find a better table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know he and CrackerZack and many others look for the loose games.

Zack got me playing 3/6 this weekend, but i was playing 2/4 before.


Here's my dilemma... Half the time I play I don't know whether I should be ecstatic there are 5 people seeing the flop and a couple guys calling all the way to the river EVERY single hand or be REALLY scared.

Normally I'm both. I don't want to be at a table where there isn't much action, but I do find I'm losing often to these river callers.

The good news: I do take notice of these people and how much their chips fluctuate... Up a 100 down 100 within an 45 min. Digging into the pockets to find more money...

The bad news: They always get me.

I'm a very tight player. I'm getting more aggressive, but probably not aggressive enough. There has yet to be a day/night at a live game where someone doesn't say "uh oh, she's in the hand. I'm scared." But there's always the crazy guy at the table and always a guy who cares less about who's in the hand, he'll play every flop. I love the crazy guy cause he's usually raising with nothing, making pots big, and I can usually read him well enough to make a big pot off of him. The "see every flop" guy who stays till the river scares me a bit. I'm still happy to have his money in the hand, but as of late, he's been making me nervous .

I find myself fluctuating at the table on any given poker night like a roller coaster ... up a few, down a few, up a few, down a few more. Not until monday have I ever really won in the casino... It seems like these "fish" I somewhat long for at the table are always getting me.

For example.
I have JJ UTG and I raise preflop. Guy next me, who's been playing "so, so", calls. We've been chatting most of the night. I know he respects my play and always assumes if I'm in the hand, my cards are good.

The flop comes Q/images/graemlins/heart.gifJ /images/graemlins/heart.gif2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

I think I'm golden... I bet. UTG2 calls and some other dude in late position calls, everyone else folds.

I'm thinking, what is the guy next to me calling with (when he knows i'm in the pot). I'm putting him on Qx... also putting other dude on Qx or Jx. They are probably putting me on QK or QA or a flush draw.

I'm actually happy i got some callers with a great hand, but i'm thinking, "if the flush is to come, throw me a pair on the board". Turn comes /images/graemlins/heart.gif (not sure what card it was, but other than it being a heart, it didn't scare me.)

So I bet, UTG2 calls, "dude" folds.

My thoughts: "Why is UTG2 calling me?" Does he have a straight draw? crappy 2 pair?, a crappy flush and is scared I have a better flush? or just Qx, hoping to make 2 pair...

River comes another /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

My thoughts: "Not again"

I check, UT2 bets, I fold. I know he has me beat with a heart. (Based on my read, he's not bluffing me).

Since I know some of you like to guess what the Poster's opponent has, I'll let you guess and get back to you with his hand in a bit.

At the time I threw my set away, I wasn't on tilt, I was OK with it. I know this happens often at the limits I play and I take it as being defeated in this hand, but "just wait 'till your flush doesn't come buddy...." And can't wait to get my hand against these people again. So I wait patiently as I normally do.

On that note, my hands kept coming and I kept getting out drawn. Same table within the same hour I flop Top 2 Pair twice. I come out betting or raising, the 4 flush kills me again the first time, and then a set which falls on the turn kills me yet again. I'm looking at QTs, the flop comes QTX, turn is a 6... giving a guy with pocket sixes his set.


So after a while, I did let it get the best of me, and it just kind of killed my weekend at the Borgata. I was quite disheartened. Zack can confirm.

I keep thinking my time will come, my time will come when the fish doesn't catch. But I seem to be having some crazy bad luck in the live game. I'm being eaten alive. /images/graemlins/wink.gif
I know it's good to have action at the table, but what about too much action? Too many cold callers to the river?

Of course Sunday night, I swore off poker for good.... and found myself right back at the 3/6 game on Monday. Go figure.

So my problem is, I can't figure out whether or not I like the 5 flop callers. I love the bluffers. I love the raisers. But the fish keep biting me in the A$$.


I blame my addiction on Zack.

[Joe Tall]

Vespa,

[ QUOTE ]
I know this happens often at the limits I play

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, however, what you imply is wrong. It happens at the limits Zack and I play too. I'm sure it happens at the limits Clark and Ulysses play too. I'm sure it even happens at the levels Mason plays too.

Do the higher players post about it? No. They are too busy trying to maximize the situations when they've got it good. They are too busy figuring when to get out of a hand that they may not belong in. They have no worries about the players with long odds against them.

We need to maximize our wins, minimize our losses. We need to make room in our stacks for the fish.

This is why the greats here have preached to me to scratch and scrape out every single last bet from every single caller/better. This is why the greats have beaten me down in the past for pushing an edge in the wrong direction, even if I did drag the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
The bad news: They always get me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be forgetting the times that they have folded the river or mucked their hands as you raked chips.

I know you vividly remember the times when, let's say, J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif dragging a pot on a KJ526 board when you 3-bet preflop AKs. You can see the cards being turned over and you're having to look back twice because you don't believe your eyes. How could he call 3-cold? You ask.

Well, this is what happens, this will always be true, this we cannot change.

By thinking, practicing, reading, studying these situations we make room for Gent holding J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and he is a welcome part in our game.

You must have missed my rant from a few weeks ago? The KK hand is an actual hand:My Loose Games "Rant" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=holdem&Number=491819&Forum =All_Forums&Words=loose%20games%20rant&Match=Entir e%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=3months&Main= 491819&Search=true#Post491819) /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Keep at it, you're a good player, only the experience will help. Soon enough you'll seek out such games and your eyes will light up as you wait for you BB when their are 7 players to the flop for 3 bets! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Vespa]

Nah, I didn't miss your rant. I found that extremely amusing. I probably didn't write my post correctly...

I'm not really trying to complain about the fish as much as figure out is there ever a game where there are too many fish?

I don't mind being beaten with crap hands. Trust me, it happens to me all the time. As I move up in levels... I notice there are less limpers in the game. I enjoy the fish. It makes the pots bigger. But just curious, can there be too many fish at your table?

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not really trying to complain about the fish as much as figure out is there ever a game where there are too many fish?


[/ QUOTE ]

Hell no. You're bankroll is just going to go through more swings. It's an 00ber profitable situation. Get some!

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
ever a game where there are too many fish?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you are alergic to big pots. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif (If you were playing at the Trop this may be true. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

Peace,
Joe Tall

[CrackerZack]

[ QUOTE ]
But just curious, can there be too many fish at your table?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually a much more interesting question than it seems at first. The knee jerk answer you'll get from many replies will be no. But I don't believe this is correct. Many authors have written about ideal lineups, etc and one with 9 fish was never mentioned. It usually goes along the lines of 2 very loose passive players, 3 or 4 weak tights and yourself with maybe another good player. I feel there are a number of reasons for it.

First, how well do you adjust to a game with an average of 7 to a flop. Are you overplaying certain hands? Do you realize your TPTK hands need to be protected, not build a pot? are you betting/raising draws for value? These are just a few adjustments in a uber-loose game. Are you mentally prepared for the swings? And they can be brutal.

How much are the effects of schooling hurting you? Do you realize which hands are hurt by this? Are people's bad calls hurting your hands? Here (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Morton%27s+Theorem&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnu m=4&ic=1&selm=362d8826.89557436%40nntp1.ba.best.co m) is a very interesting post that should be considered in these situations.

Last, are you properly adjusting the hands you play PF? Big unsuited cards feed implied odds of other players, big suited cards and suited connectors feed off the implied odds of other players. Post flop are you calling enough with the massive implied odds your getting?

I'd like to get more into this discussion but I'm getting creamed at work right now. I'll be back later to revisit.

[CrackerZack]

This topic has really got me thinking, which is good, I think. No one else seems to reply or care so I'm just gonna keep babbling on and maybe someone out there will take notice.

I'm not sure if no one other than bicyclekick responded because I called the response they planned on giving "knee jerk" and they don't want to disagree with someone with waaaaaaay too many posts on this site or don't want to invoke that same posters wrath. I assure you no wrath will be invoked. I'm all for discussion here. Let's discuss.

The original question was, "Can there be too many fish at your table?" First, I think we need to define fish. I define fish the same way a poster last week described a "nit". Someone who plays too many hands, has no concept of position, chases regardless of odds and how weak their draw are, etc. Most fish are passive, some are aggressive, all of them are in it to win it. This brings me to my point. I know the silent masses are silently agreeing that you can never have too many fish at your table. I will be the one to disagree. For some players, this is true. Some players loose games are their bread and butter, the looser they are, the better they fit their style. But this isn't true of everyone. Each player has their own natural style and their style fits certain types of games. There is a lot of talk here about making adjustments depending on game conditions. But its just that, an adjustment. A change from your natural style. It seems to many posters that making these adjustments is easy no matter how different it is from your normal style. Yet still I read posts from people, some are long time posters, that struggle on Party, yet beat the crap out of UB games. Are they just not as good at adjusting as others? Possibly. Or is their natural style just much different than many players and the adjustments they make are either not enough, or they fall back to their natural style while multi-tabling? There was a quote from clarkmeister in a post in mid-stakes forum, "I don't think anyone is good enough to reliably tell the difference between a 6% chance of being good and a 4% chance of being good." link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=531676&page=1&view=expand ed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=) This included an interesting discussion involving the always entertaining Tommy Angelo. But this got me thinking. We all have those hands, the pot is huge, the river was terrible and we just know that our opponent got there. But the pot is huge, so we call anyways. And he shows us the rivered winner, we nod and fold. You KNOW you're beat, but you call anyway, because you'll admit you're not good enough to reliably tell if you're beat 95% or 99% of the time. I don't think any of us are. Its not a knock, we're human. But for some reason we say that our adjustments to different type of games are 100% correct. Bring on all the fish, we can adjust we say. Is that wise? Are we sure we can adjust? Wouldn't it make more sense to hunt out games that fit our natural playing style? If for nothing else, just so the times your concentration lapses you're playing about as well as you can even in autopilot.

Take me for example. I really prefer loose games. Passive great, aggressive, fine, just make 'em loose. I'm clearing the bonus on Pokerstars now and those could be the tightest games on the net. I adjust my play and think I've adjusted well but I still find myself confused a bit more often than I do in loose games. I'll find myself in positions I'm not as accustomed to and have to consider things I rarely have to think about. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the challenge, but I'm certain that I could play better in these games and I'm not able to play an "A" game because its contrary to my natural style. I adjust my style and play on but I can honestly say I'm less confident in my play (and for those who read my posts, you'll know confidence is rarely a problem /images/graemlins/wink.gif ). I'm playing games far from the comfort zone of my ABC poker game.

What's the point of all this? I'm not sure. I think there's a point. I realize many people say game selection is key and I agree, but I think we need to look at ourselves and our ideal game. Maybe you're great at pounding tight games. Knowing who's blinds to attack, or when the PF raiser can be 3-bet and you know you'll take it on the flop. Maybe you're the type that likes knowing the EP raisers have group 1-3 hands (ugh, i mentioned the groupings) and you like knowing the players won't get out of line. Who knows. But doesn't this change what is a "good" game for us? Shouldn't our game selection reflect our natural and preferred styles?

In closing, I'm just hoping I spur someone to think more about what their ideal lineups would be, and how well they really do adjust. I don't mean this as a jab at anyone, especially you bicyclekick for your answer on this thread. You could be right, your game could be perfect for a full fish table. I don't know. But I want to think about it and I hope others want to too.

Zack

[Lori]

Okay, health warning, all SSers other than original poster, look away NOW.

I never have been, and never will be a great LHE player, however, coming from a PL/NL background I have improved my LHE game to a degree now where I can destroy the games you describe on a regular basis.

It took me a long time to work out the fundamental, and simple problem.

You are playing too tight. (and you wont hear that very often from me I assure you)

Remember that idiots are idiots, they are not just idiots before the flop, they are idiots on the flop, on the turn, on the river and in the bar before the game.

If you do not put yourself in the shoes of an idiot when considering their range of hands, you are not playing correctly.

Sure, there might only be a one in ten chance of a good player holding the hand required to make a call in a spot in a normal game, but with an idiot in play, the hands he might be holding go up and up.

Classify your idiots.

Clueless idiot: Might have any two cards, play against him as you would against a random number generator.

Predictable idiot: Always check raises good hands, raise his bets and check to his checks.

Gus Hansen idiot: Any two preflop, might play better after the flop, allow for the fact this guy is only a partial idiot.

Mike Sexton idiot: Always bluffs the river because it's "The only way I could win" call the idiot on the river with any hand that could possibly win.

Whole bunch of idiots: Despite identifying your idiots, you will notice that sometimes they gang up forming a whole village of idiots.
You cannot take money from idiots if you are not in the pots with them, lower your starting requirements substantially, but maintain solid post flop play.

Lori

[SpiderMnkE]

I agree with you 100% It is very possible for a very loose game to be unprofitable for a certain playing style. In theory we could all adjust to each situation perfectly, but this isn't the case.

I just came from .5/1 where is was 7 to the flop, no fold'em hold'em, if I have a pair or a gutshot or 22 I'm going to the river. Eventually I found this game to be very profitable, but when I first got there I came from UB and my friend and I had discussions about how there was no way to beat this game. None, it's impossible. Well, that wasn't true and after a while I crushed it.

Now I've jumped to 2/4 and the game is totally different. You guys may say 2/4 is loose, but it is tight city compared to .5/1 Luckily I've adjusted and right now am beating it at a better win rate than .50/1

The 2/4 game is much more comfortable and the variance is MUCH MUCH less. I haven't decided which type I like more, but I'm glad to have gone through the .5/1 land so that when I find a 2/4 table that is similar to .5/1 I don't freak out because nothing is holding up. I know that if I wait I will take down the 1 massive pot that will put me up for the day. I know know that AK isn't going to bring me massive pots like my suited connectors and small pairs.

I think that it would be good for everyone to learn to play in both styles. Even if you prefer one more than the other, get in a good 5-10k hands at .5/1 so you know what to do when you table loosens up. Or if you love loose games, play at tighter ones for a while so that you can still beat the game when there are only 2 fish at the table.

Seek out your favorite type of table... but its pretty important to be able to adjust.

A table full of fish is profitable, but like everyone says, you will be in swing city. If you don't have thousands of hands of experience with it, then you won't understand where the money comes from.

But yeah, for people without the experience, a table full of fish actually can be unprofitable and "unbeatable"

I don't know what my point is.. just that I agree that different styles, and different skills play differently at different tables. The goal should be to be able to handle any table, but there is nothing wrong with looking for the tables that suit you best.

[Vespa]

This is good stuff. Thanks everyone.

Lori, thank you for the classification breakdown. I do change my play a bit depending on who's in the hand, but i don't think I classify my idiots well enough.

I like your break down a great deal. I'll probably print this post and sit with it next time I play... lol

And I think you're right on my tight play. I've been thinking about this a lot lately and wondering to myself if I'm playing way to tight. I do have Lee Jone's book WLLHE. I will admit I haven't read it page for page yet. I have been making a slight adjustment to my starting hands depending on how many players are seeing the flop (or how many players I expect to see the flop). This is still probably one of my bigger issues, but I keep learning.

I'm also probably not adjusting my play enough after the flop.

I'm curious as to other people's "adjustments" as well. Zack and I were discussing this some yesterday. And he mentioned a possible change would be check raising in SB position on certain drawing hands in certain conditions. Being relatively new to the game and not playing as much as most of you (though I do play often these days), check raising a good drawing hand in SB had NEVER EVER crossed my mind. In fact, I almost never check raise in my games.

I'm interested if any of you have thoughts on that. And maybe some atypical play for the tight player like me against a group where you usually have at least 5 post-flop players.

On a side note, I've killed the .5/1 game on Party. UB low limits killed me. Casino loose games have been killing me. Which makes sense seeing that I don't see as many hands at the casino as I do online. Though, I definitley think I'm not adjusting enough, so I will be taking all your suggestions! And probably posting here more often. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Lori]

haven't read it page for page yet. I have been making a slight adjustment to my starting hands depending on how many players are seeing the flop (

Remember to adjust for the quality of the play after the flop as well.

A borderline hand vs a complete idiot is much better than a borderline hand vs a Gus Hansen idiot, as your implied odds are much higher.

Edit: That is to say, change your PREFLOP play if you know the post-flop play is going to be dire.



Lori

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
You are playing too tight. (and you wont hear that very often from me I assure you)

[/ QUOTE ]

As a closet LAG, I'm glad somebody said this. You want to get involved in a lot of hands if you're playing against idiots, because they have three more betting rounds in which to be idiots.

[CrackerZack]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that it would be good for everyone to learn to play in both styles. Even if you prefer one more than the other, get in a good 5-10k hands at .5/1 so you know what to do when you table loosens up. Or if you love loose games, play at tighter ones for a while so that you can still beat the game when there are only 2 fish at the table.

Seek out your favorite type of table... but its pretty important to be able to adjust.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all of this. Learning to play all styles is something everyone should strive to.

[ QUOTE ]
In theory we could all adjust to each situation perfectly, but this isn't the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agreed and to the core of my point. Say player X is a winning player and has a style that lends to loose games and is very adept at adjusting. Say his winrate is 2.2 BBs/hr at party micros which are very loose and match his style well. For this exercise we'll agree that is his "true" winrate. Player X decides to move to Stars and play there exclusively for a few months. The games are now much tighter and he makes all the proper adjustments. Can he get his winrate in these games to match his "true" winrate? Is the winrate sustainable in tighter games? These are the things I like to think about. I personally believe there are only a handful of players in the world that can completely adjust properly.

Thanks,
Zack

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
they don't want to disagree with someone with waaaaaaay too many posts on this site or don't want to invoke that same posters wrath. I assure you no wrath will be invoked. I'm all for discussion here. Let's discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I often wonder about this theory, the 'fear-poster'. I'm willing to say if I was afraid to discuss things w/top posters on this forum, I'd still be playing 2/4. I've responded with some really bad advice but I've made so many adjustments even after I tried to defend myself. You’ve seen me report such adjustments by responses to future posts, I hope.
__________________________________________________ __

I thought about your Post on the drive home yesterday, CZ. I thought about the 'schooling effect', Morton's theorem and I tried to realize why too many fish didn't concern me. I wondered if I fully understood what the question was; why I have no problem in such games; why it does not concern my game.

I'm happy you posted this, as I was planning a similar response about adjustments.

"Shouldn't our game selection reflect our natural and preferred styles?"

I feel no game holds it's characteristics long enough. I think if you are to succeed in the long run, you must learn to adjust and re-adjust as the game fabric changes. As different players pick up on your play, change how you play a hand, you may have to set them up for future hands. Check out this post: Clarkmeister's recent 'Ode to Tommy" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=528994&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1)

You need to develop reads on your opponents and use them to your advantage, “he’s a turn folder”, “don’t bluff him at all, super call-station”, “he protects his BB w/cheese but plays well post-flop, don’t steal.”, “he’s a total LAG, if you can get him heads up w/88 3-bet preflop.”, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just hoping I spur someone to think more about what their ideal lineups would be, and how well they really do adjust.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that someone was I, you did it. Here's one thing that I've been practicing, and maybe it's the reason I adjust well. As you know my main game is 10-20 Live at Foxwoods. I play online also 5-10 SH on Party. However, if I don't feel all that great, I'll play 1-2 on party, or .25/.50 on Pacific.

Lately when my roomate is around as he is learning, I'll play .05/.10 on PokerStars, yeah that's right, penny poker. (Funny thing, once it was tighter than the Foxwoods 10-20 /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

I bounce all around on different sites playing anywhere and all limits. I do this often, I play when I feel like it, I play according to what I feel like. I think it's the best way to stay on top of my game.

I try to prepare myself for all types of situations, I practice and practice, think and discuss.

Adaptation is the merit of any successful man/woman in all aspects in life. Poker reflects like so well, doesn't it?

Peace,
Joe Tall

[MRBAA]

Lori nailed it. The key is less to find a game that suits your style then to find a style that suits the game. In general, tight games are much worse than loose ones, as tight play involves some degree of discipline and knowledge. All idiots definitely don't play alike -- pre or post flop. Many at these limits play any two suited for example (or almost). Others play high cards but will call raises with any cards they'd limp with (like KJ). So keep notes and you'll find many of these players individually are very predictable and you'll be able to make good reads. You still want to be much tighter than them preflop, but once the pot gets big if you're not sure, just call that last bet. You don't have to be right very often to make a lot of money.

[WDC]

Sometimes you have a bad day at a great table. You play near perfectly and still lose a bunch of $. You play better than 7 of the other 8 guys at the table. You watch and know exactly what type of player each person on the table is but the cards are just a little off. Everyone is hitting their 3 outers on you river. Flops either do not help you or give you the staright of flush draw that never comes. You post a big loss and start to wonder whether you should move up to avoid all the fish. My suggestion is no, play with these same guys again, eventually you will get their money.

Yesterday I played in possibly the best 4-8 game that I have ever seen and I lost 260 bucks while playing near textbook. To be honest I probaly tilted off a couple of bb's.

I had aces cracked 4 times. The best strating hand that beat them was A7 suited. They lost to both 2-5 off and 3-4 off after I had flopped a set. Both to the same guy who called three cold to play them both times. He saw every flop for 4 straight hours.Once the guy went six bets with me on the turn when all he had was an inside straight draw. At one point he won 7 hands in a row and was up 500; he left down about 250. I want that guy in my game. I also want his friends who call down with bottom pair because they could spike two pair or trips. I want the guy who only bets or raises when he has the current nuts. I want the guy who thinks runner runner flushs and straights happen all the time. I like those guys, they are my friends. I congratulate them on their fortune when they crack my aces and tell them that of course they can't lay down bottom pair when they are on such a heater.

The cards just didn't come for me today, but I can't wait to sit in that game again and again. Their money is going to be mine (at least I think so.) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SpiderMnkE]

haha.. that game sounds awesome.. and the money is going to be yours

[JTG51]

I usually avoid really long posts because, well, because I don't like reading all that much. I'm glad I read this one though. Great post Zack.

My ideal lineup to play against would be four or five calling stations, three or four weak tights, and one or two loose aggressives. Not coincidentally, that is a very good description of both the Foxwoods games I learned to play in and the Party games I spend most of my time in now. Those games fit my natural style, because those are the games where my style was developed.

I imagine that's the case with everyone. Someone who learned to play in low limit Los Angeles games probably has a natural style best suited to beat loose aggressive players. Someone who learned to play in mid limit Las Vegas games probably has a natural style best suited to beat rocks.

I don't know that one type of game is inherently more profitable than another, but I do know what games are more profitable for me. I make adjustments well enough to beat very aggressive games or very tight games, but I don't do as well in them. Maybe that's the difference between good players and great players. Good players kill their favorite kinds of games and can make the adjustments to their natural style to do OK in other types of games, while great players don't have a natural style to make adjustments to, they just totally fit in with any type of game.

[SpiderMnkE]

Yeah, so if we want to become great players... maybe we should force ourselves to play in games that we hate. We hate them because we can't beat them. But once we can beat them all... we never have to worry about a "good" game.

We will actually be poker players. Not, Party 2/4 or whatever players.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
My ideal lineup to play against would be four or five calling stations, three or four weak tights, and one or two loose aggressives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's my name? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Good post,
Joe

[JTG51]

[ QUOTE ]
Where's my name? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You're one of the calling stations. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

If I'm looking for an ideal social poker lineup, you'd be in there.

[JTG51]

[ QUOTE ]
But once we can beat them all... we never have to worry about a "good" game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't go quite so far. Playing in and learning to beat different styles of games will definitely make you a much better player, but you should still look for 'good' games. More games are 'good' to the best player in the world than to you or I because he can take advantage of all the mistakes his opponents make, not just the obvious ones that Party 2/4 players make, but he still can't beat a game where his opponents don't make mistakes.

[Vespa]

I agree with you 100% WDC. There really isn't a time where i want my fish to get up and leave. I'm usually sad they're gone. And I know I can play my best game of poker and still lose on any given night. But these past few months have gotten me thinking... there's gotta be something not "right" about my play. With the hands I play and how I played them, I didn't think I should be losing as much as I have been. (maybe I got overly confident with my party poker play where I kicked butt at .5/1, but didn't adjust my game appropriately in other games. Maybe I just had crap luck at the casino and great luck on Party.) The truth is I don't know cause until now I never made a huge effort of figure this out.

I definitely think missing from posts on these boards is the key "adjustment" when litte ones like me start tilting after so many bad beats and start posting cause we just don't get it. Of course, most of the time it's just a normal losing streak. But I love what I'm hearing today and think it's very useful.

Playing a hand as "ideally as one should in a heads up pot post flop" will yeild different results when playing 4 people post flop the same way.

I think Joe nailed it when he said that CZ got him thinking. And Joe knows he properly adjusts himself to the game he's in making him a winning player no matter what game he's in.

I think this has been my biggest issue. And probably is true of many starting out players who try to play the "correct" way. If I play the same way at a game with many fish that I would with very few fish, I don't think I'm maximizing my winnings. At least not enough to make up for all misses in the loose game. My current starting hands will not hold up as often in a loose game because of the number of people seeing the river in the end.

So as Joe pointed out - it's not really a matter of 2/4 vs. 10/20 as much as it is the "type" of game.

So now I think i have the answer to my original question. Can there be a table with too many fish?

If you can adjust your play appropriately, no. And these games will be great.

If you have problems adjusting your play, then maybe.

And the opposite probably holds true as well. Maybe there's not enough fish for you. If you're used to playing with fish and can't adjust your play to a tighter game.

So now, to all you pros, lets adjust my play. I'll start posting my low limit hands against a number of fishy opponents (regardless of winning the pot or how I felt I did). And then get responses back from those interested in helping me out on how they think it should have been played against the # of people in the pot and the people I describe (I will use Lori's categorizations). I will also post starting hands I fold and from what position. I need LOTS of help.

Thanks all for your help and advice! Now I know why Cracker spends all his waking hours here.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Ed Miller]

I have never been interested in the "Can there be too many fish?" debate for two reasons: (1) Any game full of bad players is very profitable. Even if it might not be the MOST profitable game possible, it is very profitable (btw, I'm not saying that it isn't the most profitable). (2) I would never leave such a game (for a different one), because it is for sure close enough to perfect that one or two lineup changes could fix it up. I'm never going to look at a table of nine terrible players and say, "hrmm.. maybe there's a better game." There might be, but I sure wouldn't know how to identify it.

So don't worry about your opponents being TOO bad. Even if such a thing is possible, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't still be winning - a lot - against your lineup.

If you aren't winning, there are several possible explanations:

1. You are running bad. You need to play a TON of hands before you really know from results alone whether you are a solid winner.

2. You fold too much. Part of the reason the "tight" players on this board don't beat these super soft games for enough is they fold too much on later streets WHEN THE POT IS BIG. I wrote a thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=462860&page=&view=&sb =5&o=) about this.

3. You don't play aggressively enough. Specifically, you probably allow an opponent who makes a strange bet on the turn to freeze you up. You just call him in a large pot when you NEED to raise to protect your hand. Is your main consideration when you raise whether you think you have the best hand or not? If so, then that's a problem: there are many spots where you need to raise ESPECIALLY AGAINST VERY LOOSE OPPONENTS even if you aren't at all sure your hand is best.. or even if you suspect that it isn't. When the pot is very large, raising often improves your chance to win it more than the extra bet (from your raise) costs you.

I'd guess that your fundamental problem is that you consistently give your very loose opponents credit for more hand than they have. If they bet, you subconsciously think of what hands YOU would bet. If they call, you subconsciously think of hands YOU would call with. Their scale is totally off that chart. You cannot beat loose players if you give them the credit for a hand that you would give a tight player. When you have a good... or decent... hand, force a loose player to show you a better one. Do not take his word for it.

[Ed Miller]

The bad beats are NOT what prevent you from winning longterm. They are just the MOST VISIBLE instances of losing pots you "should have won," so you assume that THOSE POTS are what is doing you in. In reality, "bad beats" (I hate that term, btw) are just a natural part of poker. The hands you describe occur in my 15-30 games with frequency as well. You assume that you are losing "because they are drawing out on you," but in fact, they are drawing out just as often as they are supposed to. And that is not often enough to turn a profit.

Assuming you aren't just running bad, you are losing because you play poorly in the OTHER hands, the ones where you DON'T make a big hand and someone DOESN'T get lucky. You fold top pair, no kicker when you should be raising. You check and call with a hand you should have bet. You aren't raising your good draws for value against large fields when you should. You aren't protecting your hand with a raise (especially on the turn) when you need to because the pot is large. These are the errors that weak-tight players make. BTW, I'm just assuming that you are weak-tight given your mindset and that you have read WLLH. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Mike Gallo]

Awesome thread.

I would just repeat what everyone else has already written, however props to you for getting a provocative thread going.

I found Lori's post especially insightful.

[OldLearner]

This is cumulatively the best piece on poker I have read anywhere, let alone on these forums.

Thought-provoking, enlightening and enjoyable.

[Joe Tall]

"You're one of the calling stations."

Awe man...I wanted to be the LAG, common, I'm totally fit for it. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"If I'm looking for an ideal social poker lineup, you'd be in there. "

I gotta make JoeU's home game sooner or later, it'll be great fun.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Tommy Angelo]

"game selection is key"

Agreed, deep. Game-selection to me does not mean "play in games that someone else thinks I should be able to beat." It means, "play ONLY in games that I KNOW I can beat." (If the game changes for the worse, or I do, and it looks like nothing is changing back soon, then I quit immediatly. I think of quitting as exactly one-half of game-selection. And there is no poker game I can't walk away from.)

"Shouldn't our game selection reflect our natural and preferred styles?

I think you made a great point here. In support I would add that our opponents and the rake have much more say so as to whether or not we win than we do.

Tommy

[Dylan Wade]

[ QUOTE ]
Mike Sexton idiot: Always bluffs the river because it's "The only way I could win" call the idiot on the river with any hand that could possibly win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for bumping this post, but is that so idiotic? I constantly find myself doing this. It's pretty routine, when I miss a draw to bluff at on the river, unless I know I'll be called or there are too many players to make it worthwile (pretty much, anything more than 3- for a typical pot size).

Flop, flush draw, I bet, they call
Turn, I bet, they call
River, I miss, How can I check? /images/graemlins/frown.gif!?

[MaxPower]

So you want to routinely bluff into 2 or 3 players who have been calling all the way? Good luck with that.

Its not going to work often enough to be profitable.

[Dylan Wade]

I will consider being more conservative with this play in the future. The way I've justified it mathematically, is that if each (of three) players has a 50% chance of folding, then we have a chance that all three players will fold of 12.5% or 1/8th of the time, which lays us about dead even for the minimum pot here. Often the pot will be quite bigger than 8BB, though, [probably due to a bunch of loose limpers pre-flop who fold when they miss the flop].

But you definitely have a point, because I'm making a dead even play under the assumption that there's a 50% chance they'll fold. If I'm off on that percentage even by a little bit, i'm making a huge -EV play. If there's a 20% chance each will fold (let's say they're calling stations) then I'm pretty much making a donation (1 in 125 pot odds to break dead even).

I haven't put a lot of thought into this play. Thanks, I think I'll be a little more careful here.

[MaxPower]

Here is what I think is a more likely scenario. Two of your opponents have a 80% chance of folding and the other has a 10% chance. Now you are getting 14:1.

If the pot actually is that big, than the chance of someone folding is going to go way down.

[CrackerZack]

Oddly, if the player is good and capable of folding on the river, I find the bluff-raise works better as their check is basically saying "i only wanna pay one bet for this river" and they completely intend to call. Oh, and don't do this on party, because no one folds on the river for one more bet.

I like that you bumped the post. It was my most thinking post in a LONG time.