Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

Me and all of my buddies have about 3 home game SNG's a week. We have been doing this for a few years now so everyone thinks they are pretty good. Constant banter after hands critiquing every mis-play and so on

The other day we invited a new player to the game. He played very LOOSE PASSIVE and was winning lots of pots. Limping in with 2 gappers UTG etc. He goes on to win the SNG and leaves my house and words begin to fly. "Im never playing with him again" one of our regulars said. Me and my brother asked him why and he responded "He is terrible, I cant play with irrational people like that, you cant win against them"

I found this to be quite interesting. Why does someone feel that playing against bad and irrational players gives them less of a chance to be the winner? What does everyone on 2+2 feel about these players who insist that playing against better players gives them a better chance of winning

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

This isn't the case. There are a couple of things going on. One, he just happened to hit hands. Everyone, good and bad, will experience that. It can happen over a fairly lengthy period of time too. Another thing could be that you all haven't adjusted properly. Some otherwise decent (not good) players insist on trying to bluff someone that doesn't fold. Obviously bet all your fair to good hands over and over and as much as possible, but just stop bluffing.

But look at it this way. Basically anyone who makes money longterm at poker plays tight and aggressive. Some looser players can still make money, but even they must be aggressive to win. So does it make any sense that a loose passive player is "tough" to beat (ie must therefore make money himself)? No.

And finally, you don't want people to fold crappy hands when you raise with AA or AK or JJ or whatever. You want bad hand to call. If worse hands fold, you can't make money. So the common idea that you can win more in games where people respect your raises is completely false.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

Be thankful he is going. Invite more like him. If it was not for lucky days good players couldnt make a living. They count on luck continuously sucking in the bad players to play. They are at war with luck and at the same time embrace it.

Any bad player can win one session.

But what the other guy said is true. You have to play loose passive players differently. Loose passice players do good against constant bluffers. You need to be selectively aggressive and know when to fold.

Invite him more often encourage him. Gimme a table full of fish anyday over a table full of average players.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

It's not chess. You can't win 100% of the time against bad players. You should win much more than against good players.

You are supposed to lose when someone gets lucky. However, if you try to bluff a calling station, you are getting outplayed. If you pay off a passive player when you only have a bluff-catcher, you are getting outplayed. When people complain about not being able to beat bad players, I assume they don't understand the game and are getting outplayed.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

[ QUOTE ]

What does everyone on 2+2 feel about these players who insist that playing against better players gives them a better chance of winning

[/ QUOTE ]

It always goes right back to the fundamental concept- The player making the least mistakes wins the most money.

The players you cite only want to play against opponents who make certain types of mistakes that they are comfortable with.

Regards,
Ian

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

It takes a different skill set to beat bad players than it does good players, in a way.

Certain strategies and plays only work if a player is aware enough to see the "danger" that you represent.

Tell him to develop the skills to beat bad players, and then you win alot more from them than anybody.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

Of course you can win against them. That's why they're called terrible and not good.

However, the subtext might be that your buddy can't play a style of poker that is fun for him to play and still win against these guys. Maybe one of the reason he finds your home SnGs fun is that he can put moves on people and beat players he considers good. If that's the case, you might actually want to consider not bringing the guy back, or at least educating him a little.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

My reply as a newcomer;that question was one of the first of my thoughts.As an example I can forsee a rookie going all in as soon strategy-percentages-location of button-preflop bets-pot rquity-etc become difficult to analyze.My attitude is to learn all you can before any of these things slow you down.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

You nailed it.

There seems to be a huge number of people who only want to play against - or are only comfortable playing against - one type of nitwit.

I never understood it and certainly never agreed with it but there are plenty of them.

Poker pros call them ABC players and refer to them as being unable (or unwilling) to adjust.

My dear friend (and quasi-mentor) calls them "formula players".

Members of this group will rarely die rich but will NEVER die broke.

Mock them if you wish (I frequently do) but do not pity them.

They may represent the triumph of mediocrity but you'll never see any of them at the cardroom running to the ATM to take a cash advance on their Visa and their rent/bills always gets paid on or before the first.

They may earn a living gambling but they are anything but gamblers.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course you can win against them. That's why they're called terrible and not good.

However, the subtext might be that your buddy can't play a style of poker that is fun for him to play and still win against these guys. Maybe one of the reason he finds your home SnGs fun is that he can put moves on people and beat players he considers good. If that's the case, you might want to consider not bringing the guy back

.



Which guy - the whiner or the guy [the whiner] can't beat ?

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

I recently encountered the same thing. A loose passive friend won a local charity tournament, so wanting to cash in on his new found poker confidence, we invited him to our regular cash game. Well...

The guy took 2 of my buy ins. Why? Because I was retarded... no, not retarded, more like hard headed. I knew I needed to tighten up, isolate the guy, and only value bet, but I was too hard headed.

In my own defense, the situation was a little more complex as the other players to my left were loose preflop and very weak thereafter, so I wanted to see a lot of flops and then push the others off if I smelled any weakness. It worked for the most part and I was picking up small pots left and right. The problem arose when the calling station guy refused to fold with J high or bottom pair, etc... so it usually ended up being 5 to the flop and 2 to the turn. But then, once I got it heads up, I was too hard headed to drop the chirade and kept betting into the guy ("God! Just freaking fold already!") and he kept calling and I kept losing my money.

The point is, most of us know how to beat a lot of different types of players. But it is having the discipline to do it that is key.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

The issue about playing with loose-passive players is that making plays against them just doesn't work. To the skilled player it can be like fighting with one hand tied behind your back, because half or more of the moves you usually use to take pots down don't work when the LPP is in the game.

The answer is, if the other guy is too dumb to fold to your check-raise bluff when the low card on the flop pairs on the turn, just don't make that play. You're going to have to show down the best hand to win. Meanwhile, LPP's presence in a lot of pots mean that you are more often getting a good price to chase draws. You can use LPP's passivity as a tool to get free cards when you need one, or to get more money into a pot when you have a good hand.

Bottom line, you have to play a different game when LPPs are at the table than when they aren't, and you have to know how to play that game.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be a huge number of people who only want to play against - or are only comfortable playing against - one type of nitwit.

I never understood it and certainly never agreed with it but there are plenty of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't understand them, you aren't as good a poker player as you think you are.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

The problem with playing against bad players is that you are unable to use one of your most valuable tools, hand reading. Consequently, you are forced to gamble more because you have no idea where you stand in a hand because bad players don't play logically. This increases your variance and, while you will win more in the long run, you can easily get killed in one or a couple sessions. Basically playing total fish is like playing roulette but having an edge over the house.
In my opinion, the best overall player to to have as an opponent is the table coach, someone with a basic knowledge of strategy but who plays predictably and uncreatively. With them, it is easy to put them on a hand and either get out when they're strong or extract maximum value when they're weak. Playing heads-up, I could beat this player probably 90% of the time as opposed to maybe 70% for a total fish.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

[ QUOTE ]
The issue about playing with loose-passive players is that making plays against them just doesn't work. To the skilled player it can be like fighting with one hand tied behind your back, because half or more of the moves you usually use to take pots down don't work when the LPP is in the game.

The answer is, if the other guy is too dumb to fold to your check-raise bluff when the low card on the flop pairs on the turn, just don't make that play.

[/ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, there are other plays you can make by using the loose passive player as a weapon against the other players. You can make a bet or raise to isolate the LPP, forcing out better hands that don't want to overcall. You can simultaneously bluff the normal players and make a thin value bet against the LPP. Even if you only have a 40% chance to beat the LPP, you may be happy to get it heads up because you pick up the dead money and have control over the hand later. A side benefit of this play is that it reinforces the LPP's desire to call all of your bets.

For example: I had KTo in the BB and checked. 4 saw the A83r flop. I checked, an aggressive EP player bet, the LPP called (any two), and I folded. In retrospect, I think the right play was to check-raise and bet the turn, which would very likely get the EP player to fold without an ace. KTo wins about 50% against the LPP's random hand.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

I meant I never understood their unwillingness to go with the flow.

I have no trouble understanding why they lose when they step out of their element, (this is what should happen) nor do I have any difficulty understanding why they don't simply adjust (they lack the skills/knowledge to do so).

- Oh my, I think we have found someone who is actually crankier than me. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Try adding bran to your diet; it did wonders for my disposition. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

ALL RIGHT - WHERE THE (censored) IS MY FAVORITE CEREAL BOWL ? [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

Well first off all suckouts should be candidates for forced sterilization so they can not further spoil the gene pool. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
Calling stations in SNG's are different than rings because if you are wrong in a big hand it is game over which means no winning over the long haul. Myself just got blasted out of a decent paying tourney by a 99:1 longshot.

I have found what works best is to be patient with them and not pay off their monsters early, the key is to keep their chip stacks as low as possible and then hammer them when the blinds get higher. If you can keep their chip stacks low then you can survive if they do happen to hit. If they luck into some chips all you can is take your best shot and live with the results.

Calling stations in rings you just play a disciplined tight aggressive style and you will eventually get their money sometimes it just takes longer than you would like.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

[ QUOTE ]

Calling stations in SNG's are different than rings because if you are wrong in a big hand it is game over which means no winning over the long haul. Myself just got blasted out of a decent paying tourney by a 99:1 longshot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arguing that calling stations are bad in SNGs because their bad call can suck out and bust you out is like saying calling stations are bad in cash games because a bad call can suck out and win a hand. You don't play one SNG in your life; you (presumably) play many over the long haul. And over the long haul, the bad calls by calling stations add to your win, just like they do in cash-game play. It's just that the long haul consists of many SNGs instead of many hands.

Re: Bad Players = Hard to Beat????
 

[ QUOTE ]
I meant I never understood their unwillingness to go with the flow.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't understand this, then you are not as good a poker player as you think you are.