Players Skill Comparison

[clovenhoof]

In one way, at least, we treat "poker" like "the common cold" -- there's really no such thing, at least, no such single thing. Comparing no-fold'em holdem to the games that HEFAP is designed for (I believe $10-20 and up) is like playing checkers with chess pieces and pretending it's chess. They're two very different games, requiring different skill sets to succeed.

HEFAP takes a game theory-like approach to Hold'em. But game theory is designed to beat a game, regardless of how well or poorly the competition plays. I'm not an expert on the topic, but I believe that in all competitive situations that can be "solved" by a game theory approach, weaker competition is beaten faster and bigger by departing from game theory and playing weaker moves, with a higher upside, that your opponent lacks the ability to counter. That's certainly the case in games like chess, and sports like football. To take an obvious (and famous) example, throwing a submarine sandwich in the pot might win you extra money in a home game, but in any kind of real game it's just going to cost you a sandwich.

Mason talks about this quite a bit in his Poker Essays books -- players who have learned to beat a single game or structure, but can't move to other games (including games they recognize as "weaker"). They have found some winning tactics, but don't have a real understanding of strategy.

HEFAP gives you lots of weapons for your arsenal, but what lots of readers don't take from it is that lots of those weapons (eg semi-bluffs) can't be used in loose games because the prerequisite circumstances don't exist. In those games, the only thing that really matters is pot odds, and manipulating the pot size so that the odds are in your hand's favour.

Of course, I'm basically a fish, so take all that with a grain of salt.

'hoof

[Cosimo]

First let me say that I agree that a player that can beat a tough game should have no problem in an extremely loose game. However, I was picking nits with the word 'better.' I consider opponents in a semi-loose game to be better than in an extremely loose game. I also think that a novice player will learn to beat the semi-loose game first.

I think the players who think they would do better against "tougher" opponents are right because they probably they haven't learned to adjust to extremely loose tables--ie they are at those extremely loose tables, and would be better off at a semi-loose table. Beating a super-loose table requires skill, and it's not one that the books cover in much detail. Hence, it's something that takes card sense, which comes from experience.

On the other hand, a tighter (yet still loose) game can be beaten just by good starting hand choices, a bit of poker reading, and some good sense. Well, ok, more than that, but my point is that when games get REALLY loose, then standard advice becomes losing advice.

-Cosimo

[DarkKnight]

"I learned HPFAP and I now follow it"

If you learned and followed the above the you would have
learned and follow the advise...that you must adjust your
play to your opponents.

Yes, some (if not many) concepts in HPFAP doesn't apply
in a loose passive no foldem game...the book even says that.

It is ESSENTIAL that you properly apply what you read. This
includes the rules on when a particular play is applicable.

[Mike Gallo]

And if you played more skilled players you would actually do better.

Please give a logical explanation of how this can happen.

I learned HPFAP and I now follow it, but it seems like I would be better off against better players.

Dave, you really need to revaluate this last statement. I will allow others to elaborate further.

You need to reevaluate your knowledge of gambling theory.

Please answer this question, would you prefer to play against 9 unknown players or play against Vehn, Majorkong, Homer J Simpson,Ulysses,JTG51, LarryJoeFish33,Dynasy,KurnSonofMurg and Clarkmeister.

I hope I have answered your question.

[rigoletto]

Hmmm... is Vehn going to be sober or drunk?

[rigoletto]

Beating a super-loose table requires skill, and it's not one that the books cover in much detail. Hence, it's something that takes card sense, which comes from experience.

Beating any poker game requires skill, but super-loose games probably requires the least skills of all. And since the books don't I'll cover it: fold, fold, call - flop - fold, fold, fold, fold, call - flop - fold, fold fold, call - flop - jam - turn - jam - river jam - scoop monster pot, fold, fold, fold... etc.

[MichaelD]

Cardsharkdave,

I have read all of the responses and am intrigued by a few of them; particularly the poster who mentioned that Dynasty claims that playing any pair utg can be profitable in the right game. I am not sure that I necessarily agree with that statement, but I do agree that almost all situations are game dependant.

In regards to your statement about your results possibly improving by playing against better players, I would ask you the question of whether you actually mean "better" players or "more predictable" players?

I have found that as players progress through the different stages of their playing careers, a couple of characteristics seem to be inherent. One of these characteristics is that when extremely weak players actually attempt to become better players, they usually become more predictable.

When a poor/weaker player reads his/her first book, or attempts to actually study the game, they usually make an effort to "tighten" up their game and make the "right" play. Many times when they do this, they become fairly predictable and much easier to play against.

Until a player figures out how to tighten up their play without being too predictable, they can be vulnerable to players who can recognize the situation and take advantage of this.

With this possible exception, I do not believe that your results, or anyone's results will improve if they play in a game with truly "better" players.

Just some thoughts...

Michael D.

[leon]

LOL

I like it. I used a similar description to describe to friend how I play on Party poker, 3tables at once-

foldfoldfoldcallfoldfoldfoldcallfoldraisefoldfoldf oldcallfoldraiseraiseraise drag huge potfold foldcallfold etc etc

Even playing robot poker the action at 3 tables at once can get confusing.

LEon

[leon]

That poster who made the comment about dynasty's any pair utg statement was me. You're right, it is obviously game dependent but in a good loose game with people who pay off it's extremely profitable.

If you think about it most of the advice to play small pocket pairs from later positions stems from the fact that you can be isolated with a weak hand, out of position, in a semi tough game. Now you have to flop a set to continue, you don't have good odds, and the action is short handed. But in a good loose game without much raising you almost always will get a) enough players, and b) enough likelihood the pot WON'T be raised behind you. This makes these small pairs almost "positionless" hands b/c they play the same no matter what- get in cheap (most of the time you will), get a lot of players (most of the time you will, in fact your limp often sets off a wave of limpers), and you have to flop a set to continue- early or late position. Granted sometimes in late position everyone checks to you even when you miss and sometimes you can take a free card or bet if desired, but this is rare. The main value is flopping a set and you're not hurt much by your early position in these type of games, if at all.

Notice this advantage does not apply to other hands which traditionally demand mid or late position to become playable, ie big unsuited cards like KJ offsuit. Here you can still be dominated by other hands but you won't know it and you might continue with shitty position only to get hurt- ie you flop a king with KJo and someone after u has KQo. This won't happen with a pocket pair, b/c you either flop big or you're done. Same comments apply to suited connectors- you can play them early in loose passive games b/c if you don't flop a draw you're done- no guesswork involved.

In fact my number one advice to people looking to play in loose games is- drop the unsuited high card crap, play more pocket pairs and suited connectors (basically any hand that can flop huge), and ram premium hands hard.

Hope this clears that up. Maybe dynasty can provide you with specific stat results from playing pairs utg in a loose game if you want.

Leon

[Ilovephysics]

MikeD:

Great post, and I think it's especially true for those just starting out like me! That is, I believe the answer to the question is strictly an indication of how 'predictable' you become when you start to want to become a better player (even the fish know when they can bluff you, and that's bad!), and how 'predicatable' the other players are against you (and by being unpredicatable, it may still be greatly in your favor).

Yeah, surely you will get a few bad beats that hurt, especially at home games, too, if we are talking something like a $5-8 pots that you jam and a buy-in of say $10-15 for most smaller home games... and when that happens you really can't do anything but tip your cap... because is it really a 'bad beat' when you *know* that you have the best possible two pair and they are drawing for a flush and happen to catch? And don't you want them to do the same thing the next time you have this play?

And I think with home games, there is a lot of other room for error. You may be a good hold-em player under these conditions, but you may not be too comfortable with Omaha or maybe 7-stud, etc., and heck, even games with wild cards can cause for some interesting problems, especially if you are just starting to become a better player. (Yes, I know, some of you will say you can't even be a good hold-em player without being at least somewhat competent in all forms of poker)... Plus, you may be drinking and just trying to have a good time, so you will have some lapses of judgement. So even then, you still may have to tune-up you other games and understand that there is a lot left to know.