|
|
|
|
#1
07-20-2005, 09:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Playing Bad Players
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] To be honest. I think it's harder to play against bad players online (they're cake in live poker). [/ QUOTE ] I stopped reading here. This is a common sentiment amongst new players and losing players. It demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding of the game. Until you understand why, you should stick to nano-limits. You will lose less that way. [/ QUOTE ] We probably have a different definition of what a "bad player" is. There are differences between fish, maniacs and bad players. Fish are bad players in a good way - meaning that they are great for taking chips from. They're new to poker and only have a basic knowledge of the game. Maniacs are bad players in a long term good way - meaning that over time, they really lose big, and you can win big off of them. Bad players are just bad players - they basically don't know anything, they're not maniacs/loose, they simply have no clue what their hand means and how to bet it. They are completely random. They've probably seen celebrity poker once and think they know how to play poker. Not saying that I'm a great poker player, but there are many players out there that are totally oblivious. And they are the hardest players to play against. 
|
|
#2
07-20-2005, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing Bad Players
[ QUOTE ]
Not saying that I'm a great poker player, but there are many players out there that are totally oblivious. And they are the hardest players to play against. [/ QUOTE ] This is completely wrong. It is extraordinarily easy to beat a player who is totally oblivious; in fact, it is more profitable to play against them than any other type of player. To greatly simplify it, just value bet your marginal and good hands to death, and don't bother trying to read them or bluff.
|
|
#3
07-21-2005, 12:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing Bad Players
I'm gonna have to agree with Milo on this. No matter your definition of bad player, you want them in your game.
|
|
#4
07-21-2005, 02:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing Bad Players
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] To be honest. I think it's harder to play against bad players online (they're cake in live poker). [/ QUOTE ] I stopped reading here. This is a common sentiment amongst new players and losing players. It demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding of the game. Until you understand why, you should stick to nano-limits. You will lose less that way. [/ QUOTE ] We probably have a different definition of what a "bad player" is. There are differences between fish, maniacs and bad players. Fish are bad players in a good way - meaning that they are great for taking chips from. They're new to poker and only have a basic knowledge of the game. Maniacs are bad players in a long term good way - meaning that over time, they really lose big, and you can win big off of them. Bad players are just bad players - they basically don't know anything, they're not maniacs/loose, they simply have no clue what their hand means and how to bet it. They are completely random. They've probably seen celebrity poker once and think they know how to play poker. Not saying that I'm a great poker player, but there are many players out there that are totally oblivious. And they are the hardest players to play against. [/ QUOTE ] Stick around long enough and you'll realize how misguided your judgement is.
|
|
#5
07-21-2005, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing Bad Players
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] To be honest. I think it's harder to play against bad players online (they're cake in live poker). [/ QUOTE ] I stopped reading here. This is a common sentiment amongst new players and losing players. It demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding of the game. Until you understand why, you should stick to nano-limits. You will lose less that way. [/ QUOTE ] We probably have a different definition of what a "bad player" is. There are differences between fish, maniacs and bad players. Fish are bad players in a good way - meaning that they are great for taking chips from. They're new to poker and only have a basic knowledge of the game. Maniacs are bad players in a long term good way - meaning that over time, they really lose big, and you can win big off of them. Bad players are just bad players - they basically don't know anything, they're not maniacs/loose, they simply have no clue what their hand means and how to bet it. They are completely random. They've probably seen celebrity poker once and think they know how to play poker. Not saying that I'm a great poker player, but there are many players out there that are totally oblivious. And they are the hardest players to play against. [/ QUOTE ] I hope you don't take offense to this, becauase it really is meant to be instructive. Big Bait Slim is completely right, and you are completely wrong. And your reasoning, as BBS has said, does illustrate a fundamental misconception about poker that many newer players have. Everything in poker is long term. If you were to play against someone who was so bad as to make his actions almost completely "random." That would be a goldmine long term +EV situation. I've got a texas holdem game on my cell phone. As near as I can tell, the AI for it is basically just completely random, what the AI decides to do has nothing with what cards are being dealt. I beat this AI consistently and easily.
|
|
#6
07-21-2005, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing Bad Players
[ QUOTE ]
Not saying that I'm a great poker player, but there are many players out there that are totally oblivious. And they are the hardest players to play against. [/ QUOTE ] Absolutely, completely, 100% dead wrong. There is a fundamental logical flaw in this statement. If random players were the hardest to play against, then you should make random plays. Yet you don't, I assume. Why? Because it is more profitable to make deliberately good plays. Players that are clueless are trivially easy to play against. They call down with bottom pair. They raise in EP with 72o. If you play good poker, you should clean up against this random play. Can you bluff a random player -- NO. Will they suck out on you -- yes. Will they sometimes make you lose money you wouldn't have lost if they had made "correct" plays - yes. Will you win more from them in the long run than from people who know somewhat what they are doing, but make some bad decisions? (Like people who are somewhat loose PF, but will fold 72o or who know to always raise with AA, etc.) -- YES!
|
|
#7
07-21-2005, 09:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing Bad Players
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] To be honest. I think it's harder to play against bad players online (they're cake in live poker). [/ QUOTE ] I stopped reading here. This is a common sentiment amongst new players and losing players. It demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding of the game. Until you understand why, you should stick to nano-limits. You will lose less that way. [/ QUOTE ] We probably have a different definition of what a "bad player" is. There are differences between fish, maniacs and bad players. Fish are bad players in a good way - meaning that they are great for taking chips from. They're new to poker and only have a basic knowledge of the game. Maniacs are bad players in a long term good way - meaning that over time, they really lose big, and you can win big off of them. Bad players are just bad players - they basically don't know anything, they're not maniacs/loose, they simply have no clue what their hand means and how to bet it. They are completely random. They've probably seen celebrity poker once and think they know how to play poker. Not saying that I'm a great poker player, but there are many players out there that are totally oblivious. And they are the hardest players to play against. [/ QUOTE ] I love playing against all of the above. Against the oblivious, you value bet more, call down more.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
