Is it possible for a table to be too bad to play?

[miket523]

Thanks for the help everyone. Looking back on it I believe that the variance is what is making me crazy. Now I have a question that ties into a couple of your answers concerning what % of flops I should see. Keeping in mind that I am mathematically minded it seems to me that as long as a player is sufficiently tighter than the table he can make money. It appears that if one plays about 60% of the flops that the table is playing he is playing tight enough to outplay his opponents. As an example that means that at a table with 60% seeing the flop theoretically you can see about 36% of the flops and still be playing tight enough relative to the table to make money but at a table seeing 40% of the flops you would need to cut back to about 24%. Is my thinking illogical or incorrect? Has anyone else experimented with this idea and come up with a similar theory?

[Piers]

I can understand the illusion that extremely loose games are more difficult then tighter games. I think it is matter of control. I have been giving it some thought while playing multiple games at both Cryptologic/Tiger Gamming sites and Ultimate bet/Paradise/Stars and comparing them.

In a very loose game, where there is usually a show down on the river, you are going to need the best hand to win. If you are not dealt it, all you can do is just fold, while a string of good hands holding up and you’re swimming in it. But you are not in control, you’re results are basically determined by the bad play of your opponents and what cards you are dealt.

Conversely in tight games you need to use all your skills to outplay your opponents. You might make less, but it comes in a steadier stream and you feel you have earned it more.

However my results at the tighter sites are much better than the loose sites. Although this might be due to playing both loose and tight games at the same time, and as a result being too aggressive in the loose games where a more weak tight style might be better. I keep telling myself to slow down in those Cryptologic games, there is now way I am buying the pot so why try.

[MrBlini]

[ QUOTE ]
It appears that if one plays about 60% of the flops that the table is playing he is playing tight enough to outplay his opponents. As an example that means that at a table with 60% seeing the flop theoretically you can see about 36% of the flops and still be playing tight enough relative to the table to make money but at a table seeing 40% of the flops you would need to cut back to about 24%.

[/ QUOTE ]This could be about right for a loose passive full ring game. However, 36% may be suboptimal even when others are seeing 60% of flops in a loose passive game: 36% might be profitable, but 24% more so. 36% includes a lot of marginal hands, and many of them may be marginally unprofitable.

In a loose aggressive game, you need to play significantly tighter than the table to make money. If 80% are seeing the flop for four bets, you don't want to be playing 48% of your hands.

In tight games, though, you can play too tight. If you're in a tight aggressive game, the best advice is to get out! If you must play, though, you don't want to be the one seeing only 10% of flops while the table is seeing 16% on average. You are either getting bad cards or you are getting your blinds stolen too often. Excessively tight players get chewed up at these tables, although not as badly as excessively loose players.

The rake structure is an important factor no matter what type of game it is. Hands that would be marginally profitable without a rake become marginally unprofitable with a rake.

The number of players is also an important factor. Shorthanded play is a very different beast.

[J_V]

Your thinking is fuzzy on this one. You are right that in a rakeless game of equally skilled opponents you would make money playing 59% of your hands if everyone else played 60%. But you are not making money on the hands in 58%, you are certainly losing money on these. Obviously as you keep playing less and less there is an optimal % somewhere. It's a little bit like a Cardplayer article posted by Sklansky recently.

[miket523]

JV, thank you for pointing me to the Sklansky article. It was quite a help in clearing up my thinking on this issue.

[rigoletto]

I don't have a mathematical analysis to back this up, but I believe based on experiencethat too many clueless players does reduce your EV.

You need to rethink this!

[Moonsugar]

Yes, but the table you describe isn't one of them.

If 70% are seeing the flop you should make a lot of money over the long term. Just remember that you are going to have to showdown the best hand at the end. Nothing fancy is going to work on a table like this, usually.

Last night I was playing at a 5/10 table that was very loose and very passive. About 60% were seeing the flop. In one hand I had TT, 3 of us went to river and I was beat by both A3o and 63o with a board of 9623A. I was happy to lose that hand because I knew I would make a ton at the table. And, I did.

Never bitch about your "good" hands being beat by "bad" hands. If it happens you should win a lot in the long term. But the burden is on you to adjust your game in order to do so.

[CrackerZack]

Wow.

I'm raising your blind everytime I play at FW from now on.

I thought I play tight and my flop pctg is around 23% 15% is extremely low if you're not playing NL.

[ChipWrecked]

[ QUOTE ]
15% is extremely low if you're not playing NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean tourneys? Or possibly high buy-in games? In the Party $25, you get to limp to the flop often. I see lots of flops in that game, 32%.

[colgin]

I used to play on Pacific and made quite a bit of money there. I eventually quit the site because of frustration with their software, not because the tables were too loose. I stayed there as long as I did because the tables were so loose, in spite of how much I hated everything else about the site.

The looseness will increase variance compared to sites like UB and Stars, but not as much as you might think because Pacific tables tend to be fairly passive.

If you are patient and don't let the suckouts (and resulting variance) cause you to tilt, then these games are more profitable.

I can't think of easier tables to make "money" at than the play tables at the various sites. These tables usually have pre-flop %ages well over 70%. Pacific starts to approach those levels. Just be patient there and play a simple ABC game and you will win. Of course, you should be thinking about starting hands that play better in multiway pots.

One more thing of note about Pacific. I saw more feeble bluffs on the river at that site than anywhere else. Say, for example, you were in the lead the whole way, betting out your top pair top kicker and getting one or more callers. Then, the third of one suit falls on the river. You bet and get raised. Any other site I am calling but expect to lose. Here, you call and will get shown 2nd or third pair or a busted str8. Particularly at Pacific, unless you know you are beat call the river.