An observation!

[Vince Lepore]

Recently I had the unpleasant experience of being raped at a Hollywood Park Casino 20-40 Holdem Game. Don't get me wrong the game was great. I played bad, well as bad as any expert could, but still, I was, without a doubt, in my mind anyway, the best player in the game and head and shoulders above the competition.

Observation: It doesn't matter how good a poker player you are or how bad your opponents play in loose aggressive games. Bad play in very loose over aggressive games, in which most pots are capped with 5-8 players seeing the flop is never that bad. Consequently a paradox occurs in these games in which it is to the bad players advantage to play this type of poker game and the experts advantage to avoid them. In limit Holdem for instance, the more players that see the flop no matter what the cost the less of an edge an expert poker player has. Sklansky has stated that most money in Holdem is won after the flop. This may be true for most type of Holdem games but not for very loose very aggressive games. In most games an expert's skill allows him to pick up extra bets or save bets after the flop. In very loose very aggressive games there are only 2 skills of any importance. The first is hand selection, perhaps the most important of all. Secondly is raising, fourth street raising being the most important followed by heads-up river bluff raising. The latter is important enough to think about because given the right situation it will win you a big pot. Those of you that have an interest in deciding whether or not this observation is correct need only to observe most 15-30 Holdem Games on PartyPoker.com.

Vince [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[BarronVangorToth]

Your variance will be high in these games (especially with lots of caps pre-flop) but the key just still boils down to great starting hand selection (especially when you know things will get capped) and playing well after the flop.

The more dead money gets thrown into the hand, the better.

The example I'd use was a few weeks ago when I raised UTG with pocket Aces and EVERYONE called except one guy.

Was I the favorite to win the hand over everyone else? No. If it was Me or Them, I'd pick Them as I knew I probably wouldn't win the pot.

HOWEVER, give me a table where everyone is cold-calling with John Q. Random hands -- sure, as I said, variance goes up -- but so does overall profitability.

You might lose a number of big bets early on to suckouts and two-outers, but keep playing properly and the tides will indeed turn.

Bad play, at the end of the day, will always pay out to superior play -- if not then, over time.

Question not the math.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[TripleH68]

[ QUOTE ]
The example I'd use was a few weeks ago when I raised UTG with pocket Aces and EVERYONE called except one guy.

Was I the favorite to win the hand over everyone else? No. If it was Me or Them, I'd pick Them as I knew I probably wouldn't win the pot.

HOWEVER, give me a table where everyone is cold-calling with John Q. Random hands -- sure, as I said, variance goes up -- but so does overall profitability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put. I prefer to see some big pots won and lost. It is more fun and tends to get others carried away with the action. I have played in a number of passive or tight games with smallish pots. It makes for a real grind.

[Vince Lepore]

Well put? Do you trully believe that? Variance goes up is a no brainer. But you have to prove that overall profitability goes up. I don't believe that it is true.

Vince

[Al_Capone_Junior]

As a long time player of california games, I agree that overall profitability doesn't go up, but variance goes WAY up.

I prefer one maniac or semi-maniac to my right, three calling stations, and the rest tight-mc-whitey as being the most profitable games.

al

[Kirkrrr]

Much, much higher variance but much higher long-term profitability that goes along with it, as someone else already mentioned.

I'd say there's two key general concepts to consider here also: Being properly bankrolled as the LAG'ishness of your opponents (like me [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]) can put a major dent in it short-term.

Secondly, not loose your head (yes, that was a pun [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])and go along with the crowd. When I find myself in such situations where I'm not the cause of them (as in, the game gets tight, you switch gears and go into maniacal mode for a few minutes and before you know it everyone opens up), it becomes more important than ever to stick to good hand selection, keep your head, and pick your fights extremely cautiously as every mistake becomes vastly escalated.

On the other hand, however, if you ARE properly bankrolled and can handle the variance, by loosening your standards you can increase your win rate exponentially as your good-but-not-great hands that you'd normally dump in face of excessive action now become playable and get paid off in excess of their "average" value.

Like always, a lot of it comes down to knowing your players. I'm done rambling.

Kirk R.

[Ray Zee]

yes i think many players will improve their expectation if they adjust to these games. but for much better players their expectation goes down. one- because your expert play is reduced to hand selection and making good folds with some good raises. but it also slows the hands per hour way down. that in itself reduces win rate. a much better game is where you have one or two very bad players donating each hand to whoever plays in the pot.

[Vince Lepore]

Well, I come back to twoplustwo after a long lay off and throw up a post and RAY ZEE replies! Wow, it don't get better than that! Well the fact that he agrees with me makes it better but ...

Thanks Ray,

Vince

[MMMMMM]

Hi Vince,


Well you have M pretty much agreeing with you here too (not that that carries the same kind of weight Ray's opinion does;-)

I hate games like that which you described. Yes I know how to play in them but they are too darn SLOW and often frustrating to boot. I would much rather play against loosies than against loose-aggresssives. Also, several loose-aggros on a table can make the game quite difficult.

Another factor is that several loose-aggros will cause you to lose control of the table (if say you might have had some psychological control over the table under other circumstances).

I have done better over the years at loose-passive tables than at loose-aggro tables and it isn't close. In fact if a table gets too maniacal in more than one spot or maybe two I will generally start looking around for other tables.


P.S. It is good to see you back, Vince, I was wondering where the heck you had gone to. I am still playing mid-limit and had a very good Spring but a truly crappy Summer. But Autumn is coming and I can feel the change about to arrive in the air;-)

Also, I LOST our bet hands down, my leg troubles notwithstanding. I have not given up on getting in shape though, but I am far from where I bet I would be. If you would like me to send you the 1500 I will send it to you wherever you are as I am a man of my word even if I am not quite a man of the willpower I thought I was.

Hope all is well with you and IMO 2+2 was the worse off for not having you here.

M

[MMMMMM]

P.S. Vince,

I am currently walking 2.5 to 3.5 miles 5x/wk, sometimes with the 5-lb. hand weights, usually up and down hills (despite chronic knee and ankle problems). Sometimes I go through the woods and meadows which is nice except for the insects and the summer heat and humidity. It seems that over the years the mosquitoes and deerflies must have have developed a resistance to Cutter's and even Repel brand insect repellents and I get about 4 bites per walk if I take the scenic route (take that route about half the time). Lifting heavier weights about 2x month now. I had actually made good progress losing weight and getting in shape for a while, but this last year all the playing poker on the internet has been very bad for me physically it seems. The gut has returned and the spread is there and I have gotten all kinds of cricks where none existed before. Of course this is my fault for not being more dedicated but it is partly the lifestyle of internet poker. This fall I will take a more active approach to my entire life, not just walking once a day, because I do not think once a day will do it if one is glued to the computer 12 hours a day.

I think I could meet the goal of not being able to pinch an inch but it would take a full year from now. If you want to grant me another extension I will offer you 100-1 odds instead of 75-1 odds on your 20 dollar bill. After that, no more extensions; I will either have met the goal or pay up. You are of course under no obligation to do this. If you prefer, I really will send you the 1500 right now. If you choose the final extension, we will count a year from Labor Day and John Cole will conduct the pinch test. I will also post a detailed quarterly progress report, including any related items of interest.


P.P.S. Please post more, the forums surely missed you.