Loose Games -EV?

[Poldi]

You are wrong, you win money from your opponents mistakes. If they play perfectly, you wouldnt be able to win anything at all because of the rake.
Of course you mean they just play a bit better but its the same thing, fewer mistakes -> less money to be made.

I think you dont make the right adjustments to their playing style. Maybe your style fits better when playing against the tighties.

[Pocket77s]

What are the required laydowns and how do you extract full value from the winners? Please ellaborate.

[Klepton]

i read the title.

no.

[TheCroShow]

sigh...i wish MORANS on 2+2 would understand the meaning of +EV and -EV. 99% of the threads started with "EV" in the title are mis-used.

like above poster said, you only have to read the subject to answer "no" didn't bother to read the rest. sigh....i hate you all

[bambi]

Yeh your title is completely wrong.

But some peopls games suit a diferent style of play, these tight games might be a gold mind because you bluff successfully a lot, etc etc

The bring problem her amongst the posters is they dont realize, that a good player will win in any game, no matter what conditions. At the WSOP you cant choose to play on the table with 50% of people seeing the flop and average pots of 20bb

A good play will adjust and win in any game.

[xniNja]

I agree. I should not have used the term -EV, or at least should have quantified it more explicitly with the short run or medium-long run. I was very tired at the tail end of a session. I understand what EV is, don't worry.

Rudbaeck, the intended heart of my initial post was to contend that playing weak-tight players is generally more consistant money than playing a table full of maniacs or calling stations, in the short to medium long-run. When I brought up Sklansky about calling stations I wanted to address the more philosophical issue of game choice and see what type of games other people prefer. Many people may still also disagree with this, and I think there is a lot of truth to the maximum amount of profit in the long run being from the weak/maniacal players, but I don't think it's mathematically wrong to prefer to give up (what I think is) some long term profit for short, medium & as a result, long term stability.

Also, when re-reading my post I don't think any statistic is so relevant, this is more of a question of weighing long term profits with lower standard deviations, and which you prefer to do and why. I didn't mean to come off as a total noob, lack of sleep had me using "-EV and +EV" as a substitute for coherent poker logic.

[Zygote]

The relationship between your standard deviation and your winrate is what will effect your swings. If you're properly taking advantage of the loose-calling stations, you should definitely not being experiencing larger swings than playing against TAGs. In other words, you seem to believe that you need a larger bankroll to play against loose-calling stations vs. tighter, better players which simply is not true.

[xniNja]

I definitely believe exactly what you just said... that you need a larger bankroll (and more technically, more time) to play against loose calling stations vs. tighter players... Why is this simply not true? and why wouldn't you experience larger swings than playing against TAG's?

[Bodhi]

Oh dear, I can't even imagine what people are saying in this thread. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[xniNja]

Ok, so I admit I knew from the beginning the title would get attention and wasn't technically accurate... but I think some interesting ideas were expressed pro & con.