[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
But like you said, he was likely going to stick around anyways.


And I know that's a good thing. We want players to stick around like this. The problem is that, at Party, it's been my experience that they hit their outs more often than not. Maybe it only seems that way to me, since I do so badly there. Or maybe I'm just a bad player. I'd like to think of myself as tight-aggressive. But probably, as you can see from my previous example, I'm much more weak-tight. Something I really need to work on.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

You couldn't have gotten that guy out of there with dynamite. He's a low limit calling station, and he's in there for the duration. He probably would have called on the end if he didn't hit trips, just to "keep you honest."

Any one player doesn't hit his suck out draw at Party any more often than anyplace else. The difference is that there are more of them hanging on to the end at Party, so there is a greater likelihood of one of them sucking out. It's called Implicit Collusion. With more people in the pot who don't belong there, it is as if they are colluding against the good player. The result is that you win fewer pots, but they should be bigger when you do win. I haven't seen any numbers on it, but I would think that the variance at Party would be great than elsewhere because of this.

Also, are you using Poker Tracker? Reality doesn't always conform to our self-image. I always considered myself to be tight-aggressive, but PT told me otherwise. So I'm working on playing tighter and more aggressively.