[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
First off I don’t think you should ever label anyone an idiot. This is something I’ve been guilty of in the past and am trying to get away from. If I can curb my ego a little and look past the 92o as a poor hand and/or play, and start to look at the motive behind it, a couple things might happen:

1) I see a logical motive - (maybe a poor one even) - It’s there however, and has value – Figure it out / implement what I can into my game / how can I exploit?

2) I see no logical motive - I just can’t comprehend it if it is in fact there – Maybe it’s emotional / chemical? Or maybe I’m playing against a monkey – Misclick?

This is exactly why I find using these sorts of maniacal tactics effective at times. I’m not saying it’s some untapped fountain of profit, although it could be. I just see others reactions to it (maniacal tactics) as extremely valuable. I recognize how quick I label another player a fool, or a lagtard. Realizing this… I see just how exploitable that rigid point of view is.

For example, the next time I see this guy that raised UTG w/ 92o, I open up my range of hands I may play back with. When you start looking at the implications of this through all streets of one single hand… How many extra bets might this 92o guy get from me just because I was discriminating based on one starting hand he played?

I went on a tangent here, but let me try to answer the original question. How soon do bad decisions converge? I think they converge as soon as they betray the decision-makers relationship with other players observant enough to realize what is actually going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

well said lash, thanks for your thoughts.