Less of an edge against multiple bad players? (long)

[Lunamondo]

When ever the top pair based strategy becomes less value it's what I call a loose game, and my opinion is that the EV goes down in those games, but I am not an experienced loose (6+) game player, other than when it's an extremely loose (preflop raises are cold called and there are some five players on the turn) game where I radically adjust my strategy on every street and play it more like omaha than holdem.

[Ed Miller]

The funny thing is that they'll often make comments about how ridiculously tight I am... and then go ahead and call anyway the next time I raise.

[microlimitaddict]

after some online success in ring games and sng's i decided to give my area casinos a try and play live for the first time ever (excepting a couple of ventures a few years ago when i had no clue how to play)...

saturday night so i was expecting the drunks to come out and to find a loose game. first game was extraordinarily tight for 4-8 and there was plenty of chopping going on. only 1 or 2 fishies.
couple of the oldtimers left and the table eventually broke up....got moved to Maniac-City. 7-9 players seeing the flop almost every hand (I believe the low was 5 players seeing the flop....of course, when we had 9 seeing the flop I was the only one sitting out). Capped some of the time pre-flop....a couple times it wound up being capped by a couple of guys who refused to look at their cards. One guy capped and capped all the way to the river and then turned up a 25o with lots of laughter because he didn't match anything on the board. He would have swings of plus/minus $500 throughout the night which is kind of hard to do in a 4-8 game. He was to my immediate right so at least I knew where I stood when it came to me....in other words, he didn't raise every time...just half of the time I would estimate...of course, he would typically raise when I was hoping to see the flop for just one bet.
I waited and waited...but when I finally got solid starting cards my KK would lose to a guy holding 47 for the board's only possible straight...and various other typical bad-beat-these-stupid-idiots-are-ticking-me-off type stories.
Dropped $300 at that table...but I also know that I chased a bit too much and could have been more selective. Now that I'm digging into HPFAP a little deeper, I DEFINATELY know I should have been more selective. A couple of times I thought I would be able to sneak a peak at the flop for just 1 bet with 9's or 10's..but then the guy to my left who virtually never raised would decide to raise it and I would be stuck either paying 2 more bets or folding after I was already in (naturally, I decided
to throw good money after bad....most ill-advised).

These games are weird and frustrating...because it costs $20 just to see the flop in a 4-8 game. However, the rake was virtually a non-factor in the game which is a positve. A $3 rake on $30 pots (with $1 going to the jackpot) can be a decent chunk of one's potential profits. But a $3 rake when there is $100 or more in the pot pre-flop isn't going to effect you a whole lot....especially when it's the other guys exchanging their money back and forth across the table while you're just waiting to pick your spot.
To the same end, the blinds don't eat you as much either.
You have to be content to sit back and wait for the less frequent but bigger win. If the button passes you 5x without a playable hand coming your way (if you're being properly more selective, then this wouldn't be that unusual) then you've only spent $30 at the 4-8 table to see plenty of cards (equalling plenty of shots at pocket A's or K's)...and when you do hit the good cards you can count on hopefully investing $20 pre-flop and maybe geting plenty more after that.
But the obvious key is to not fall in love with your cards when you finally get a play-able hand. If the board looks straight-able or flush-able then you have to either stay-in cheaply (i.e. - free) or not at all.

I will gladly sit with the maniacs again, I'll even put up ith all of their cigarette smoke for the privelege....and I'll either bring a good book to read (thankfully, reading IS allowed at this particular joint) or make sure to get a seat where I can watch the ball-game on TV.

To address the previous query - I agree that bad players benefit when they are at a table with other bad players...and good players benefit when they are at a table with other good players. It's not as much of a contradiction as you may think but i do understand the point you are trying to make.

[ACPlayer]

This cannot be right.

Good players will have a big edge in a game with lots of bad players. This because they will

a. make appropriate adjustments to their starting hands, devaluing TPTK type hands and upvaluing nut draws
b. correctly jam the pot with the best draws
c. read hands better than bad players
d. play their position better
e. manipulate the pot size to their advantage.
f. cut back on all semi-bluffs.
f. play the short handed pots correctly.

A "good" player who does not make these adjustments will loose his edge. For example being the fifth limper with AJo or not raising 3 limpers with AJs, etc preflop. Good players playing their normal tough game will loose.

[bernie]

a $500 dollar swing can be common on this table. even though it's 4-8. its playing as a 16-32.

about the rake...

dont kid yourself. the 4-8 is very tough to beat given the rake. and it does take it's toll. all the players could be swirling big pots back and forth and there's still going to be over 1 rack an hour going down the hole. think about that. in 9 hours, if everyone started with 1 rack, there will be 9 rebuys if the same players are still there. say 3 guys trade pots back and forth for an hour, who's winning? the rake.

on a 4-8, the rake is a factor, no matter how much action is out there. it just seems smaller, but it really isnt. when comparing rake, do it in comparison to the betting structure, not the action. example...there's a big difference between a $3 rake + 1JP drop in a 4-8 and the same rake/JP in a 10-20. and action has nothing to do with it.

i wouldnt bring a book and read though. eventually even the fish will stop playing when youre in a pot. especially when your active in the pot. it may not be immediate, but it will happen eventually. why draw any more attention that youre only playing the nut hands than you have to? ive played in those games, and had the rep as the 'nut' player. and i can tell you, it sucks having that rep. especially if youre playing with pretty much the same group day after day. you will have to change your play a titch eventually.

just some ideas

b

[bernie]

for the most part i agree....nice post

another adjustment..

"or not raising 3 limpers with AJs,"

knowing when you dont have to raise with this preflop even though there are many limpers. it still has value to do this, but there are times when it loses some of it's value so there's no need to do it. something to look into...

there are also times you can be the 5th limper with AJo. you just have to be able to play it. it doesnt play well in multiway pots, but that doesnt mean it's not playable. you just have to be careful with it. (hint:much has to do with your letter 'e'. on both issues)

b

[Play Tight]

This is an amazing topic. I posted earlier this week on another web site in regards to this very topic. The breakdown is approx. the same 50/50 in responces to playing with the fish and sleeping with the fish. We all have to draw our own conclusions as to whether or not our games and minds are disciplined enough to play in a game with 5 to 6 or more players seeing the river.

If your able to win in this game great for you. I'm almost certain, and this by no means is meant as an attack or slight on any of the above mentioned posters, that many of the theories posted are just that, theories. I only noticed one post that states anything about actually playing of games in this situation and coming out on top.

With all that being said, I have played recently in this situation and it was not kind to me. The scenario: I walk into the poker room to find them opening a new table with 7 young guys from some college track team or something like that. The dealer is giving them a refresher course on the game. I think I'm in heaven. Not really, my great hands, that I believe I played very similarly to the threories mentioned above, were cracked and I lost money until I made a table change. The biggest issue that I found was that no matter how great your starting hands were with 6 or more players seeing the river every card turns into that miracle card for someone.

The very next night I returned to the same poker room to find most of the cast from the previous night game in the room but not sitting together but rather spread 2 or 3 to each table. I was seated with 2 of these kids and within about an hour or so they were wiped out. As soon as these kids left the table the action died so I made the move to another table with their buddies and soon enough they were cleaned out also. It was amazing to watch the swings between the two nights. When there were 6 or more players seeing every river one of them was bound to catch a lucky card and for huge pots everytime but when only 2 or 3 of them saw the river they were cleaned out very quickly. My personal choice is to have a mix of very good players, average players, and fish. Yes of course the fish will suck out on you once in awhile but they will dump it right back onto the table in this game, but when the whole table is sucking out I will not play. Good luck to those of you who will.

A couple of hands from the I slept with the fish night so that it shows how bad the play was.

1st.....I'm on the button with AKs and open raise called by all. 7 see the flop of AK6 rainbow. EP bets out and I raise all call. turn 2. Checked to me I bet and all call. River 2. Checked to me I bet and all call. I show top two and lose to MP's 92o. Why was he in the hand pre and post flop? his comment when his buddy asked why he didn't bet the river, "I thought that guy (me) had a set of A's" Then really why were you in the hand?

2nd.....I have pocket A's in MP. Its raised to me so I 3 bet and all call. 6 players in the hand to see the flop of 9c 3d As. Blind bets I raise and all call. Turn 10d. Blind betts out and I raise 4 of us remain. River 6d. Blind bets out I make a crying call as does everyone. Blind shows trip 9's I show trip A's and lose to LP's J/5d flush.

3rd.....I'm in LP with Q's limp in because of the bad play and want to see a cheap flop and fold if I miss. (Many of you might disagree with this play here, but its been a tough night already and I know that many of these players are going to stick it out regardles.) 8 players see the flop of 7 Q 4 rainbow. Checked to me I bet and 6 call. Turn J. Ep bets out and I raise 5 call. River 5...Checked to me I bet and get raised by LP. All call to me and I muck in disgust. LP shows 8 6 offsuit for the rivered gutshot straight.

As you can clearly see I played solid hands, bet them for all they were worth (with the possible exception of limping preflop on hand #3,) and lost with them. These are only three hands from the night. There were two other regular players besides myself and we all played tight, only premium starting hands and mucked if we missed the flop and pumped it when we hit the flop. These fish played any two and traded chips back and fourth amongst themselves like they were hot potatos. Personally, I will not again play in this texture of game. I will play with 2 to 4 fish at a table and take my lumps when they come, knowing that the chance of thier miracle catches making it everyhand is limited vs. 6 or more players chances. Good luck to all who wish to enter this type of game.

[Jimbo]

Just a quick response to Play Tight. I have very few times found loose games such as has been described above but enjoyed them while they lasted. You wrote "Good luck to all who wish to enter this type of game." Luck is what the other players need not the one who will likely take home the chips over the long term. Which brings me to your situation described in your post above. The fact that one evening you lost at a table with many weak players then won the next night when they were seperated means nothing. Using two short sessions to prove a point is a good effort but the sample size is too small. The turn of perhaps as few as 6 or 8 cards could have made you a winner in the first session upon which you would have an entirely different viewpoint. That is why the math is used to erradicate the short term fluctuations whether a player has experienced the pool of fish effect or not. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Play Tight]

You're correct sir, two sessions does not make for a large enough sampling to dictate further success or failures. But as I said this is simply my own beliefs and they are arrived at not just by these two sessions but from many sessions of a great lenght of time that I have arrived at the understanding that with larger numbers of fish in the game the harder it is going to be to win, even with great hands. To each their own as I originally stated.

As far as luck goes I have two thoughts on this. Poker is a skill game and those how understand many variables including odds, tells, etc are going to be victorious. On the other hand I see Moneymaker win the latest WSOP. He had never even played live action poker let alone a tournament live. He pays $40 bucks on the internet and decides to spend his vacation in Vegas and goes home with $2.5 million. He stated when asked how he did it, "I got Lucky, I guess."

I'll take mathmatics, practice, expierence, and understanding over luck any day of the week but I don't think luck (good or bad) can be thrown out the window. Let's remeber some of our countries smartest and well funded minds who have calculated and tested beyond belief have still had a few issues. I'm talking about the brains at NASA losing two shuttles.

[MaqEvil]

Doesn't this mean that bad players are better off in these games? If this is so, how can good players be better off, too? Or is it not a zero-sum game...

Good players are better off and bad players are better off. Think of it this way. If it's you and 9 equally horrendous fish, you are big +EV and they're all little -EV. Add in another good player and now you're less +EV and they're all more -EV. The situation is still zero-sum, but the person sacrificing EV is the good player who is not in the game.