\'good\' games and bad
 

I've finally reached the conclusion that my expectation is significantly higher in 'rational' games than in less rational ones...in general, the better the players, the better my earnings. I find this odd, and it raises a lot of questions. The pat response would be that I just loosen up too much in these nonsense games, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Does anyone else suffer from this problem? Or better yet, has anyone suffered from it and overcome it? Is it possible that the loss of information from other players making irrational bets is sufficient to destroy any positive expectation?

I've gotten to the point where I will only play 'sane' games. Mostly high-limits, and if some idiot with a ton of money comes in, I usually leave. I've proven to myself that I usually lose, and never have fun, against these players.

Comments appreciated!

Re: \'good\' games and bad
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've proven to myself that I usually lose, and never have fun, against these players.


[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you believe it, it will be true.

Re: \'good\' games and bad
 

[ QUOTE ]
in general, the better the players, the better my earnings.

[/ QUOTE ]

My win rate is higher against bad players than it is against good players. I can't explain it, but that's just the way it is.

Re: \'good\' games and bad
 

I find it hard to believe that this is really true, but I can understand why you might think so. Most of my earnings come from the bad play of others, calling bets they shouldn't or playing hands that should have been folded pre-flop, so it only makes sense that I would rather play bad players than good ones.

It can be very hard to read bad players, so perhaps you make bad decisions assuming your opponent is better than he is, folding to his (bluff?)raises, or getting caught pre-flop with hands that don't play well in multi-way capped pots.

More than likely you have had some bad runs of cards in those games that have you determined to avoid them rather than wait for the "long" run to kick in.

Re: \'good\' games and bad
 

I cannot believe this is true. I expect you're not making the adjustments for how bad some people play.

Re: \'good\' games and bad
 

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot believe this is true. I expect you're not making the adjustments for how bad some people play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Against good players, it's more important to vary your play and to bluff/semibluff more often. Against bad players, this is a waste of time and money. You win by playing better starting hands and by punishing them for playing dominated hands. Sometimes it takes several thousand hands to become evident, but if you have the discipline and consistency then you will eventually reap the rewards.

Re: \'good\' games and bad
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've finally reached the conclusion that my expectation is significantly higher in 'rational' games than in less rational ones...in general, the better the players, the better my earnings. I find this odd, and it raises a lot of questions. The pat response would be that I just loosen up too much in these nonsense games, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Does anyone else suffer from this problem? Or better yet, has anyone suffered from it and overcome it? Is it possible that the loss of information from other players making irrational bets is sufficient to destroy any positive expectation?

I've gotten to the point where I will only play 'sane' games. Mostly high-limits, and if some idiot with a ton of money comes in, I usually leave. I've proven to myself that I usually lose, and never have fun, against these players.

Comments appreciated!



[/ QUOTE ]
i am very happy to find out that your fishes are different from mine. at least we don't have to share the same bunch of fishes [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

now the real question is: will I be your fish? guess not, because that will require me to play good [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Kenny

Re: \'good\' games and bad
 

One has to play differently in a "rational" game than in an "irrational" one, the same as one plays differently against a "rational" opponent vs. an "irrational" one. That is why David and Mason included a special loose games section in their second edition of HEFAP.

I envision a sort of parabola of poker information gleaned from opponents. The weakest hypothetical opponent gives no information at all: he would play every hand and play every hand the same way. As this opponent improves slightly, he starts to play fewer hands, and also starts to play them differently. Most commonly, he starts playing more "rationally": his bets and folds fit better with what he "should" do given his actual holdings. Thus he becomes somewhat easier to read, stays in with losing hands less often, but becomes somewhat less easier to beat.

At the middle of the curve is the break-even player. He is probably the easiest to read because he plays the proverbial A-B-C game, betting only when "appropriate" and checking or folding when "proper."

As a player progresses towards expert status, his readability decreases. He makes seemingly irrational plays as his level of thinking progresses upwards. But those seemingly irrational plays are in reality profitable, as his card-reading ability and other analytical, mathematical, and people skills increase. He can now play more hands, and play more holdings deeper into the hand because he uses his expertise to extract profit where a less-skilled player cannot.

Players are defined by who wins money and who loses money: a good player is by definition a winning player and a bad player a losing player. If a player is playing in an idiotic fashion, to use your term, he will lose money. You, as a better player, must, by definition, win more money when he is in the game.

Now, having said this, I too generally do better in calmer games. This has to do, I think, with what Mason talked about long ago in one of his essays, that the best pots are medium sized, rather than humongous. It also had to do, I think, with what Abdul alluded to when he talked about each subsequent call by each fish making each prior call less and less fishy; the fish are sort of colluding, unbeknowst to them. I am sure my personality and style of play, adverse as both are to big swings, makes me do less well than I should in wild games, and probably better than I "should" in more conservative games.

Loss of information definitely must cut down on winnings. But the irrational player who plays badly more than makes up for this by his bad play.