Interesting phenomena

[JDErickson]

Was hoping to get other takes on my poker experience.

I seem to do much better (monetarilly and statistically) at the tighter sites (UB, AP, Stars, etc) than I do at the looser sites (Party, etc).

Now normally this would seem to be impossible as I am playing against tougher competition at the tighter sites.

Is it possible to be better at playing tighter tables than loose tables? And if so is there any reason to not keep playing the looser tables? Can ones personality be better suited to the tighter games?

Thanx,
Jim

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible to be better at playing tighter tables than loose tables? And if so is there any reason to not keep playing the looser tables?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes its possible but I think its definitely more profitable to learn how to play the loose games better.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible to be better at playing tighter tables than loose tables? And if so is there any reason to not keep playing the looser tables? Can ones personality be better suited to the tighter games?


[/ QUOTE ]

It is certainly possible to be better at playing tighter tables than at looser ones if for no other reason that it is possible to not know how to take full advantage of the weak play at the looser ones. Of course, one should learn to take full advantage of them as well.

I am in a similar situation to yours. While I beat the Party $3/6 I don't beat it for as much as I should or as much as I know other good players are doing. Although I make adjustments for the loose play I am clearly not playing optimal for these tables. On the other hand, I have been pretty much crushing the UB $3/6 game for an extended time now. Yes, I could just be running extremely well but I think I have a very good handle on the weak-tight play that is prevalent there and take full advantage of it. Like you, my instinct is too just play at the tables that are more profitable for me. However, I feel that I should be ready for all game conditions and that, in the long run, the loose games have to be more profitable if optimally played than the tight tables (assuming optimal play there as well). Thus, I play both Party and UB in about equal amounts. The result has been that I have continued to crush the UB games while improving my earn rate at Party.

I would suggest playing in both types of games.

Good luck. All the best,

Colgin

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Can ones personality be better suited to the tighter games?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well you can expect more variance in loose games so if your personality is such that you have difficulty with large swings then you may be better suited psychologically for tighter tables, particularly if you are prone to tilt. But that doesn't mean the tighter tables are better. As I said in my other post I think that the looser tables, by their nature, are probably more profitable if played optimally than the tighter tables are and we should all learn to beat them handily (something I am still working on).

[TheRake]

[ QUOTE ]
It is certainly possible to be better at playing tighter tables than at looser ones if for no other reason that it is possible to not know how to take full advantage of the weak play at the looser ones. Of course, one should learn to take full advantage of them as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard a rumor there will be a book coming out soon that will address this situation. Guy is supposed to be some kind of poker authority or something.

TheRake

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
Guy is supposed to be some kind of poker authority or something.


[/ QUOTE ]

This has been noted.

[arkady]

I dont want to clash with Tosh or Colgin, but I believe at this point in time that PP is not as loose in the 3/6, 5/10 limits as everyone makes it out to be. Maybe it once was, maybe it will be again - but its just not that much looser than the other sites we play at. Specifically AP is significantly looser and UB while I dont have the PT stats for it, SEEMS looser.

However the variance between the three cannot even compared as PP is simply off the scale. I don't quite understand what causes this, perhaps the large number of psycho aggressive maniacs, but I am not entirely convinced that PP is the premiere fish pond on the planet and consequently banging one's head against a wall trying to beat it may not be the best solution. If anyone is crushing UB 3/6 then thats great! It could be just as statistically random as not crushing PP 3/6, but spending time there because others are doing well seems counter intuitive. Their hot streak is not any different than that of a hot streak on AP or UB, IMO.

I know for a fact Tosh commented upon his return that he found 5/10 to be particularly tight, so perhaps looseness is not the major factor for all this variance. I dont know.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard a rumor there will be a book coming out soon that will address this situation. Guy is supposed to be some kind of poker authority or something.


[/ QUOTE ]

Geez, I wish there was a way I could pre-order such a book so I would receive it as soon as it is available. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[StellarWind]

I am just beginning Party 2/4 after playing only at Paradise. I'm still trying to understand the differences between the two sites. This is sort of a first impressions post.

1. The small minority of players who are awesomely bad (as opposed to just ordinary bad) seems to be much larger at Party.

2. Paradise 2/4 has many tight/passive and normal/passive players. Many of them don't play badly at all and I think some of them are winners. Despite that I am very comfortable playing against them. I know who they are and how they play. It's not easy to take serious advantage of them but I have a small steady edge and they don't interfere with my fishing. BTW, most of these guys carry knives. They are for stabbing naive players on the late streets. Just because a player won't bet his fair hands for value doesn't mean he won't bluff.

I haven't really seen this component of the Party population yet. Maybe they will become evident as I get more repeat encounters.

3. The smaller population at Paradise really helps me. I'm slow to read a new player but very diligent with PokerTracker. When I have past experience against most of the players at a table my edge increases greatly.

4. Preflop the difference between the sites is not too noticeable. Paradise players are somewhat more aggressive overall but have fewer maniacs. Yet Party pots are bigger and I think that is because they chase more. I think I need to tighten up on some bluffing-type plays, e.g. betting overcards after a PFR.

5. More than anything, Party players just seem stupider. Even between two players with the same general style, it seems like the Party player is more likely to make the blooper reel. Like the guy the other night who called the river with a small pocket third pair on a double-paired board with low fifth card despite extremely strong earlier betting from two opponents.

[Bob T.]

Was hoping to get other takes on my poker experience.

I seem to do much better (monetarilly and statistically) at the tighter sites (UB, AP, Stars, etc) than I do at the looser sites (Party, etc).


Me too. I also seem to do better in terms of BB/hour in 5-10 and 10-20 than I do in 3-6. Go figure.

Now normally this would seem to be impossible as I am playing against tougher competition at the tighter sites.

Is it possible to be better at playing tighter tables than loose tables? And if so is there any reason to not keep playing the looser tables? Can ones personality be better suited to the tighter games?


No, I think that your game is better suited to some tighter games, for a number of reasons. I think mine is also.

One, the style that is advocated here, is to play modereately tight, and very aggressive. What happens, if you are playing that way, is that you are frequently playing shorthanded pots, and in shorthanded pots, it is frequently the aggressor who wins, all other things being equal. Additionally, in a tight games, aggressive play creates some dead money in the pots in the form of money left by folded blinds.

In looser games, where a couple of more players see the flop, the value of aggression is lessened, except when you actually have the best hand or draw and are betting actual value. Your implied odds go down when you raise, and you aren't as likely to have created dead money in the pot with that same raise, so you don't get quite as much value out of the raise.

Another thing to think about, is that the games where loose-bad players lose their money the fastest, are games where the good players do what I call, 'an orderly evisceration'. This might happen if there are one or two loose-bad players, and several good players at the table. The good players take turns playing against the bad players, and once one good player is in, the other good players frequently don't come in and compete, because they know the first good player likely has reasonable values. So it gets to be one good player against one or two bad players almost every hand, and the bad players, having given up a lot of ground preflop, can't make it up postflop, especially in shorthanded pots which don't pay drawing hands well.

I think that the conditions for these types of games occur more often on the tighter sites, and at least for me, both the profitability, and variance improve in these situations.

Good luck,
play well,

Bob T.