'partypoker is hard to make money'

[Meatmaw]

A friend of mine was telling me how her roomie's boyfriend quit his job to play poker online, flying to vegas, etc and runs a gaming site. One thing she mentioned was that he said:

"It's hard to make money at Partypoker because a lot of beginners play unpredictably. He only plays high stakes."

I laughed at this initially, but then it got me thinking. I don't know if this pertains to limit, NL, SNG, ring, or all, but do you guys feel that completely unpredictable bad players might be tougher profit than perhaps 1 level up at predictably weak or some other breed of player? Was this guy alluding to players at Party just being *so* bad that it was more profitable against more informed amateur players? What do you think?

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
A friend of mine was telling me how her roomie's boyfriend quit his job to play poker online, flying to vegas, etc and runs a gaming site. One thing she mentioned was that he said:

"It's hard to make money at Partypoker because a lot of beginners play unpredictably. He only plays high stakes."

I laughed at this initially, but then it got me thinking. I don't know if this pertains to limit, NL, SNG, ring, or all, but do you guys feel that completely unpredictable bad players might be tougher profit than perhaps 1 level up at predictably weak or some other breed of player? Was this guy alluding to players at Party just being *so* bad that it was more profitable against more informed amateur players? What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the most common myths in poker. "If only players respected my raises I would win". That is of course nonsense. If you can't beat players who constantly make mistakes, who are you going to beat.

[Meatmaw]

yes, I know that every mistake is effective cash in your pocket in the long run, but my question was more geared towards whether exploiting those mistakes was easier against slightly more informed (or even moderately more informed) players such that one might observe it being more profitable in a less beginner (and possibly more predictable) field.

But I was skeptical of it as the thoughts came out, so it's no surprise if it isn't.

[jah0550]

huh? Dont you want to play against idiotic players? They are the ones that give you money...oh yeah I forgot, fish don't know how to play the "correct way." Tell your rommie's boyfriend to go back to his job, because he is a fish himself. Why wouldn't anyone want to play with an entire table of fish?

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
A friend of mine was telling me how her roomie's boyfriend quit his job to play poker online, flying to vegas, etc and runs a gaming site. One thing she mentioned was that he said:

"It's hard to make money at Partypoker because a lot of beginners play unpredictably. He only plays high stakes."

I laughed at this initially, but then it got me thinking. I don't know if this pertains to limit, NL, SNG, ring, or all, but do you guys feel that completely unpredictable bad players might be tougher profit than perhaps 1 level up at predictably weak or some other breed of player? Was this guy alluding to players at Party just being *so* bad that it was more profitable against more informed amateur players? What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think theres a good chance your friend will be broke soon.

[gumpzilla]

This is a popular question. It is also a popular question for people here to get snobby on.

Here's my answer: better players should be harder to make money against because they have fewer weaknesses to exploit, usually, and don't pay you off with utter crap. That said, if your friend isn't necessarily a good player, it might be that he has a style that will perform much better against tighter opposition than looser opposition, AND doesn't know how to adjust his style to deal with the fishies. But, the tight/loose dichotomy isn't the same thing as better/worse, though there's a strong correlation at low levels. Frequently people talk about "better" players when what they really mean is tighter players.

If your friend could adjust properly, then the fishy types who will call down with virtually nothing should be a better source of profit in the long term than people who play more solid poker.

[microbet]

I agree.

There is a difference between what is easiest and what is most profitable too.

A table full of absolute rocks is extremely easy to play. It may not be as profitable as a table full of crazies, but it is a lot easier.

[canis582]

Need I say more?

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $0.5 BB (6 max, 4 handed) converter

saw flop|<font color="#C00000">saw showdown</font>

<font color="#C00000">UTG ($60.85)</font>
<font color="#C00000">Hero ($48.25)</font>
SB ($53.95)
BB ($23.6)

Preflop: Hero is Button with T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises to $2</font>, Hero calls $2, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB calls $1.50.

Flop: ($6.25) 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG bets $3</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $8</font>, BB folds, <font color="#CC3333">UTG raises to $20</font>, Hero calls $12.

Turn: ($46.25) 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">UTG bets $38.85 (All-In)</font>, Hero calls $26.25 (All-In).

River: ($111.35) 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 2 all-in)</font>

Final Pot: $111.35

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
UTG has 9c 9d (two pair, nines and sixes).
Hero has Td Qd (two pair, tens and sixes).
Outcome: Hero wins $98.75. UTG wins $12.60. </font>

[gumpzilla]

Unless this guy has shown you some seriously maniacal behavior before, I think substantially less of your play in this hand than his.

[canis582]

Hes a Maniac a Maniac a Mannnniac thats for sure. and hes raising like hes never raised before.