[andyfox]

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.