Playing Bad Players

[dondarias]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean in the long run, the good players will win?

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely this is the definition of a good player. If in the long run the bad players won they would be the good players.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
This should not be true.

It should either feel good or nothing to get sucked out on, preferably nothing, and the more the better.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is easier said than done. It can take a long while for one to finally accept this. Some never get to that point. It's opposite of one's natural reaction to losing shortterm. Usually, it's after they've just gone through a very bad run and came out of it that helps one realize the swing of the game. It should be the goal to attain that type of thinking. It's not easy for most players.

b

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
This is easier said than done. It can take a long while for one to finally accept this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never meant to say that it was easy.

I've been playing seriously for 6 years now, always trying to improve and still have my moments when I have to quit due to tilt.

It helps to understand what you're trying to do though. I just wanted to put it back in perspective.

[jman220]

[ 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.

[AliasMrJones]

[ 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!

Here is a short follow up question to my earlier post. Where, what, and when do most of you play? And how much do bad players affect you in each of those times/games?

Thanks again, for all the help so far, its been great!

[utmt40]

Just keep on keepin on...by that I mean don't let someone's bad play keep you down. Suck outs are going to happen. I used to get so pissed when that happened but now I have played so many hands and its happened so many times it doesn't bother me anymore. I also go back and look at how I played the hand and what I could have done differently i.e. (Poker Tracker). If you don't have Poker Tracker, I and several others here will tell you to get it. The main thing is stay confident and play good hands not marginal ones and that will also help with variance.

[MicroBob]

I play mostly on party.
usually 5/10 in the evenings.

bad players affect me very much in that they are the primary donators to my increasing bankroll.
Without these bad players my win-rate would be significantly less.

When there aren't enough bad players at a given table then I will get up and leave to seek out the lousy players who I know are waiting for me on other tables.
I'm always seeking out bad players. They are always on my mind. They affect me A LOT because I simply love them so.

[CORed]

[ 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 ]

You are right of course, Milo. You will definitely make more money from bad players. There is some truth to what the OP says, though, decent (not really good, but not completely clueless, either) players are easier to read. Calling stations and maniacs are harder to read. You just have to consistently play better cards and get your money in with the best of it, and let the long run work for you. This is more profitable, but also higher variance than playing the tighter, predictable players. Really ggod playere, though, when playing against other good players, will not be predictable. They will semi-bluff, bluff, check-raise and slowplay just enough to make it quit difficult to know where you stand.

A note to the OP: Don't dwell on the bad beats. Bad beats are not why you are losing (or not winning as much as you could be) Suckouts are memorable, and they can cost you a lot of money at once, but they happen to everybody, all the time. What really makes the differnece between winning and losing, or between winning small and winning big, are the extra bets you get in with the best of it, and the bets you save with the worst of it. This is what you need to be concentrating on, not the bad beats.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ 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 ]

You are right of course, Milo. You will definitely make more money from bad players. There is some truth to what the OP says, though, decent (not really good, but not completely clueless, either) players are easier to read. Calling stations and maniacs are harder to read. You just have to consistently play better cards and get your money in with the best of it, and let the long run work for you. This is more profitable, but also higher variance than playing the tighter, predictable players. Really ggod playere, though, when playing against other good players, will not be predictable. They will semi-bluff, bluff, check-raise and slowplay just enough to make it quit difficult to know where you stand.

A note to the OP: Don't dwell on the bad beats. Bad beats are not why you are losing (or not winning as much as you could be) Suckouts are memorable, and they can cost you a lot of money at once, but they happen to everybody, all the time. What really makes the differnece between winning and losing, or between winning small and winning big, are the extra bets you get in with the best of it, and the bets you save with the worst of it. This is what you need to be concentrating on, not the bad beats.

[/ QUOTE ]

A table where nobody has a bad beat put on them is a TERRIBLE table to play at.