An observation!

[dogmeat]

I think I will take the quick route with you, Vince. You are a noted "expert" and I will not respond to your posts as I am not.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[harboral]

I think you missed the point of the last post. In the game that you mentioned, with 6 or 7 players, there will be at least 5 on the turn. You will not be able to knock them out. Your play is fine, but against this group that you introduced in your own thread, they are not going away. An expert can make plenty of money in a game llike this. I've done it in a lot of games in both LA and San Francisco. The games are great, the players call everything to the river. Great games. But they ain't gettin outta the pots!

[Boopotts]

The best games to play in- and by that I mean the most profitable-- are games where nobody bluffs. By extension, games which involve more bluffing, or even marginal raising, are not as profitable as games without these features.

Wild games can be deceiving to intermediate players, or even good players with less than, say, 80,000 hands under their belts (or 2500 hrs. or so of playing time), for the simple reason that it's not that hard to flop a few more sets, or complete a few more draws, than expected over a span like this, and those few extra hands can make a huge difference in the bottom line. When you're dragging 14 BB's on average with every set you flop, or 11 BB's with every flush you fill, a couple 'extra' big hands can make a monstrous difference in your bottom line. Yet, because it 'feels' like your not really getting all that lucky you assume your results are just a reflection of your superior play.

All of this I guess is just a long-winded way of saying that I agree with no less than 80% of what Vince originally posted. If I have my choice between a game with an average of 4-5 players seeing every flop, and 90% of the pots aren't raised pre-flop, I'll take this game everytime over a loose-aggressive game. Everytime. And I don't think the decision is all that close.

[Vince Lepore]

"I will not respond to your posts as I am not."

Good decision! I hope this means that you will read my posts but, realizing that your'e thinking is clearly inferior, will accept my advice as gospel and refrain from commenting.

Vince

[Vince Lepore]

"I think you missed the point of the last post."

No I didn't. And you are not correct. Believe it or not there is a difference between 3-6 No Foldem Holdem and 20-40 very Loose aggressive Holdem. Players will fold to turn raises at the latter level, especially if they believe they are drawing dead. The situation must be correct. Your objective in the situation I described is not to get everyone to fold, it is to get those Aces to fold. If you find yourself in a situation such as the one I described and you do not do everything you can to win the pot which incluudes raising when an opportunity arises you will make a very costly mistake.

Vince

[sin808]

[ QUOTE ]
will accept my advice as gospel and refrain from commenting.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one persons advice should ever be taken as gospel.

[Vince Lepore]

"No one persons advice should ever be taken as gospel. "

You must be new to twoplustwo. Or maybe you've just never spoken to David or Mason. Both of them, I'm sure, would take issue with your statement. And you can take that as gospel.

Vince

[3rdEye]

Ok. Imagine that you are playing 20/40 at Foxwoods, and there are only two tables. You can only play at one.

Table 1 consists of total maniacs. Everyone sees the flop, turn, and river for four bets. No one folds. Ever.

Table 2 has some maniacal players, but some solid players as well. A lot of pots will be capped preflop, and the maniacs play very aggressively, but are capable of folding when they think there's a decent chance they're beat.

Which table will be more profitable, in the long run?

Intuitively, I think it's Table 2. Table 1 becomes too much like a lottery, because of the implicit collusion factor. Certainly, in the long run, good starting hand selection will win the money against a table full of maniacs. However, the skilled player is, in my opinion, likely to earn more at the second table. At Table 2, the good player is better able to use his skill to win pots, which he is unable to do at the first table.

I suppose one could look at it like this: If Table 1 is like a lottery, in which the average EV of the players is $-1.00/hour, and the skilled player has an EV of $+.25/hour, does the ability of the good player to strategically adjust to the situation push his EV over +$.25/hour if he plays at Table 2? I would argue that it does. After all, at the first table, all the skilled player can really do is play excellent starting hands, and play them all the way to the river for four bets on every street (since, because of the players, there are no fluctuations in betting patterns that give him information that would allow him to determine whether or not he is beaten at any point in the hand).

In short, I think the existence of additional information improves the EV of the skilled player at Table 2 as opposed to Table 1. After all, since everyone pays 4 bets at every street at Table 1, the game might as well be played with the cards face-up. The reason some players are more skilled than others is because they are more adept at making decisions based on incomplete information. Incomplete information is essentially non-existent at Table 1, because there are no pattern deviations.

[MMMMMM]

Hi Vince,


Well you have M pretty much agreeing with you here too (not that that carries the same kind of weight Ray's opinion does;-)

I hate games like that which you described. Yes I know how to play in them but they are too darn SLOW and often frustrating to boot. I would much rather play against loosies than against loose-aggresssives. Also, several loose-aggros on a table can make the game quite difficult.

Another factor is that several loose-aggros will cause you to lose control of the table (if say you might have had some psychological control over the table under other circumstances).

I have done better over the years at loose-passive tables than at loose-aggro tables and it isn't close. In fact if a table gets too maniacal in more than one spot or maybe two I will generally start looking around for other tables.


P.S. It is good to see you back, Vince, I was wondering where the heck you had gone to. I am still playing mid-limit and had a very good Spring but a truly crappy Summer. But Autumn is coming and I can feel the change about to arrive in the air;-)

Also, I LOST our bet hands down, my leg troubles notwithstanding. I have not given up on getting in shape though, but I am far from where I bet I would be. If you would like me to send you the 1500 I will send it to you wherever you are as I am a man of my word even if I am not quite a man of the willpower I thought I was.

Hope all is well with you and IMO 2+2 was the worse off for not having you here.

M

[MMMMMM]

P.S. Vince,

I am currently walking 2.5 to 3.5 miles 5x/wk, sometimes with the 5-lb. hand weights, usually up and down hills (despite chronic knee and ankle problems). Sometimes I go through the woods and meadows which is nice except for the insects and the summer heat and humidity. It seems that over the years the mosquitoes and deerflies must have have developed a resistance to Cutter's and even Repel brand insect repellents and I get about 4 bites per walk if I take the scenic route (take that route about half the time). Lifting heavier weights about 2x month now. I had actually made good progress losing weight and getting in shape for a while, but this last year all the playing poker on the internet has been very bad for me physically it seems. The gut has returned and the spread is there and I have gotten all kinds of cricks where none existed before. Of course this is my fault for not being more dedicated but it is partly the lifestyle of internet poker. This fall I will take a more active approach to my entire life, not just walking once a day, because I do not think once a day will do it if one is glued to the computer 12 hours a day.

I think I could meet the goal of not being able to pinch an inch but it would take a full year from now. If you want to grant me another extension I will offer you 100-1 odds instead of 75-1 odds on your 20 dollar bill. After that, no more extensions; I will either have met the goal or pay up. You are of course under no obligation to do this. If you prefer, I really will send you the 1500 right now. If you choose the final extension, we will count a year from Labor Day and John Cole will conduct the pinch test. I will also post a detailed quarterly progress report, including any related items of interest.


P.P.S. Please post more, the forums surely missed you.