'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.