What defines a good game? (Poll)

[gmanko]

I got a lot of responses to my last poll, and it seems like the great majority of respondents prefer the biggest pots possible and as many opponents as they can get.

I know that all profits come from other players, but I am thinking that there may be point where a game may become unprofitable, due to Sklansky's Poker Paradox (that if enough people are drawing at you, you may be a dog even if you have the best hand on the flop).

I ran a simulation for the extreme case (one million hands where all players see the flop), and the best hand only help up 40 percent of the time. Looking back at some of my stats the number is about 45% when 8 players see the flop. And when you think you have the best hand but really don't it hurts real bad.

Good players aren't in enough hands to overcome their beats because they don't play those kind of cards (any two suited cards, any king, calling a raise with any ace). I'm not saying the bad players make any money either - the rake eventually eats it all up.

Personally, I prefer to play in games where a few or most of the other players play
<font color="black"> </font> *** SLIGHTLY INCORRECTLY *** (as defined below) and this is what I am looking for. I would also like to hear what types of games other people like to play in.

In my ideal game the pots are not quite as big but there are not as many people to draw out on you, either - and it is actually possible to read hands. This lets me use my skill (because I am definitely not lucky) and also lowers my standard deviation.

I find that in this situation the flop is around 45%, and the pots average 7.5BB.
Here are some types of plays that I think are "slightly incorrect", given this type of game:
Plays any pair from any position
Playing any ace
Calling a raise with any pair
Calling a raise with KJ
Playing JTo from early position
Defending blinds too liberally

Here are some counterexamples (plays that are almost random):
Playing any two suited cards
Playing any king
Calling a raise with any ace
Raising with any ace, or any pair (which cuts down the number of hands a good player may come in with).
Calling a raise with any two suited cards
(one hand, I had aces and the flop came TT6, my opponent called 3 bets cold,
had he been playing even semi-rationally the only thing he could have had was AT,
which meant that he was over tens times as likely to have a ten by playing randomly).

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
I ran a simulation for the extreme case (one million hands where all players see the flop), and the best hand only help up 40 percent of the time. Looking back at some of my stats the number is about 45% when 8 players see the flop. And when you think you have the best hand but really don't it hurts real bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize your simulation is telling you something useful here? When all 10 players see the flop, the best preflop hand has 40% pot equity. A fair share would be 10%, so that's a 300% overlay. When 8 players see the flop, the best hand holds up 45% of the time. But don't be fooled: a fair share of the equity would be 12.5%, so this is only a 260% overlay.

You always want maximally bad play from all opponents; I don't know why people struggle with this concept. OK, maybe you enjoy playing in a slightly more reasonable game because of the different strategic challenge it offers you. Fine, each to his own, but recognize that if you voluntarily sit down in the 8-players-to-the-flop game instead of the 10-players-to-the-flop game, you're giving up EV.

[mrjim]

You realize that good players also adjust what they are playing based on the game. So they start playing more suited connecters and low PP's etc. I don't think there is any case where more bad players hurts your results. From this pole and your other, it sounds like you need to get used to getting drawn out on.

[emonrad87]

I'm not going to vote in this poll because it is really dumb.

A game where all 9 opponents capped every street and saw every river would be retardedly profitable for a TAG. It would also have retardedly high variance, but profits over variance sounds good to me.

[lehighguy]

I hope, by the end of this post, to prove why this table:
VPIP 80%, Average Pot 10BB
Is worse then this table:
VPIP 40%, Average Pot 10BB

But first to address the original poster. I understand yor dilemma. A lot of the time you are putting in BB on the turn and river when your behind and don't even know it. It's hard to tell if someone hit had a 4 on a flop of A,4,4 when you hold AK. Sure you got great pot equity on the preflop, but now your throwing in several big bets even though you only have 2 outs. Thus we come to a discussion of preflop versus post flop play.


Now for the meat of my arguement. I think we would all agree that HoldEm is a post flop game. Despite all the talk preflop gets, you only put in a few small bets preflop. Post flop is when all the heavy betting gets done. It's what matters. I'm not saying you should play incorrectly preflop, I'm just saying that you need to realize post flop is more important. If you don't believe me, read Sklanskys books again. While he correctly points out that having loose opponets improves winrate (see CH. "Where the money comes from" in SSHE) he also notes that:
"In small stakes hold'em, the real money is won and lost after the flop. 'Playing better cards' than you opponets only goes so far; experts get most of thier edge from thier superior post flop play."
Read the into's to the preflop and postflop chapters if you want further discussion.

The theory of poker, that you get +EV every time someone makes a -EV mistake is quite true. Hence your using it to justify wanting to have more people see the flop with crap. It is true that each one of them is giving you extra EV. However, this preflop mistake is not as bad as you think. For one small bet, they get to see three cards. Anything can happen in three cards, and the price is relatively cheap. So preflop errors represent a very small part of your +EV.

Most of your +EV comes from post flop mistakes because the bets are larger and you only get one card for them (no cards if the river). Consider the following hand:

Hero has KcKh UTG
Hero raises, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, CO Call, Button Calls, BB calls (so far so good).

Flop: 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img],4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ,Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
Hero bets, MP1 Raises, MP2 folds, Button calls, BB folds, hero trip bets, MP1 calls, Button calls.

Turn: 10[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
Hero bets, MP1 calls, Button calls

River: 3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
Hero Bets, MP1 calls, Button Raises, Hero Calls, MP1 calls.

MP1 has JJ. Button has 10-4o.

Who would you rather have had in this hand, button or MP1. MP1 clearly made bigger -EV decisions then Button. His preflop was OK, but his post flop play was atrocious. He is obviously drawing to two outs, but he keeps throwing in BBs. His -EV on this hand is huge, and he should have know it looking at the betting. Button made a huge preflop error, but his post flop play was steller. You guys were throwing in bet after bet with two outs. His minor -EV preflop decision got annihilated post flop.

I would prefer to play with MP1 rather then button. His post flop play is horrible. THat is not to say I don't want to play against people who cold call with 10-4o. I LOVE PEOPLE WHO COLD CALL WITH 10-4o. However, I would prefer is button cold called with 10spade-3spade, cold called the flop raise hoping for runner runner spades, then called the turn cause he already had a pair, then raised the river cause he had two pair no realizing anyone with a pair also had the 4s and a better two pair. DO you see how that button is a lot worse then our current button? HIs mistakes are HUGE.

Furthermore, consider MP2 and BB in this hand. Both could have called the raise with 72o and still not be the worst players in the world. Why? THEY FOLDED WHEN THEY MISSED THE FLOP! So they are only giving to you these small preflop advantages. I would say that they are perhaps better players then MP1 with the pocket jacks. He made obvious large errors in his play cause he fell in love with his starting hand.

So that leads us to the discussion of the perfect table. The perfect table, in my mind, is full of people that play horribly post flop. I WOULD PREFER A LARGE POT BUILD BY FEWER PLAYERS. If the pot ends up being the same size with 4 players seeing the flop rather then 8 players seeing the flop wouldn't you prefer to only let 4 people see the flop. That way you are less likely to be behind and not know it. You make the same amount of money either way as long as the 4 people stay till the river with bad hands.

Stop falling in love with conventional wisdom and think a little about the nature of the game. If you reread your books you'll realize how post flop is much more important then preflop.

I'm going to make a seperate thread about this since its so damn long.

[mrjim]

I agree that less VIP with the same avg pot is better. However, this isn't usually the case. VIP avg pot are correlated, not directly, but they are. So finding a game with 2x the VIP and the same avg. pot is highly unlikely.

Edit: And since it's too late to edit my last post, I'll point out that I apparently can't spell poll...

[lehighguy]

This is true, and it sucks that PP doesn't have PF%. However, on some sites you have PF% and AVG POT so you can choose high average pots with lower VPIP. I've seen it before.