Expectation

[MMMMMM]

Nice little test you ran, Nate, thanks.

Interesting that your sim results show about the same expectation in each game for the good player. Apparently the difference may not be as great as I had thought.

I best like being up against only fish, without good players interfering with my isolation plays, etc. I doubt if the sim could take into account the Mavericks playing differently against the other Mavericks and things like that. It should automatically include the schooling effect results to the extent that exists, though.

[Clarkmeister]

Note that while the sim results are nearly identical (and I put a decent amount of stock in the sim in this situation), you'd prefer to stay in the 20-40 because the variance would be much, much lower for the same expectation.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Note that while the sim results are nearly identical (and I put a decent amount of stock in the sim in this situation), you'd prefer to stay in the 20-40 because the variance would be much, much lower for the same expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it? I think the 20/40 game has a lot higher variance in terms of BB/hour with more players seeing bigger pots, etc. The 40/80 almost certainly has higher variance in terms of $/hour but I'd guess at we're looking at say a 1.5:1 ratio, rather than 2:1.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
Experiment #2 featured five good players, all using the Bret Maverick profile, and four fishy players, all using the Welcome Waldo profile. The good players are seated in seats #1, 3, 5, 7 and 9.

[snip]

Seat position appeared to make some difference. The Bret Maverick profile in seat #7 did the worst, winning $46.9/hour. The profile in seat #9 did the best, winning $62.8/hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting sim, thanks! Just want to point out that position shouldn't make any difference since you seated them symmetrically. The differences are just due to variance.

[andyfox]

According to Gabe's set-up, you're making one BB/hour. So the players are apparently not horrifically bad, else you'd be making more.

Having said that though, the thing that makes the bad players bad is playing too many hands. They're therefore playing bad cards pre-flop. But when more of them limp the bad pre-flop limps become less bad.

The way I look at it, which game would I prefer: one where 4 players play worse than I do and four play just as well? or one where all 8 opponents play as well as I do? My expectation in the second game is to break even (disregarding rake and tips); in the first game, I have the power to choose my spots. Subjectively, I don't worry when I see a tough spot or two or three in a game I sit in if there is a soft spot or two or three.

[andyfox]

"Just want to point out that position shouldn't make any difference since you seated them symmetrically. The differences are just due to variance."

Seat 9 is the only player with an equally good player directly on his left in seat 1. All the other good players have a bad player directly to their left.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

According to Gabe's set-up, you're making one BB/hour. So the players are apparently not horrifically bad, else you'd be making more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, which makes me think they aren't "schooling" to a tremendous extent, anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that though, the thing that makes the bad players bad is playing too many hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed that should be at least a large part of it.

[ QUOTE ]
They're therefore playing bad cards pre-flop. But when more of them limp the bad pre-flop limps become less bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an oversimplification, I believe. A common exception would be unsuited mediocre hands which become worse when more players are in. Also, notice Nate's sim did not have them "limping in" a lot but rather fairly LAG preflop (which additionally hurts those mediocre hands which also don't play well multiway).

[ QUOTE ]
The way I look at it, which game would I prefer: one where 4 players play worse than I do and four play just as well? or one where all 8 opponents play as well as I do? My expectation in the second game is to break even (disregarding rake and tips); in the first game, I have the power to choose my spots. Subjectively, I don't worry when I see a tough spot or two or three in a game I sit in if there is a soft spot or two or three.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't "worry" about it either. Still, I like to see as high a ratio of fish to good players as possible. Notice I am not saying I would like to see a bunch of maniacal fish in the game. We are specifying fish, not salmon rushing desperately upstream to spawn (and in Nate's sim case, the fishiness is more pronounced postflop).

Overall it appears a lot closer than I first thought, but I don't think it is as close as Nate's sim shows, for various reasons. And I rather doubt even Andy Fox would do better at a table only half of fish rather than wholly of fish at the same limit (again, not maniacal fish).

Most of the money won in poker flows from the fish to the good players, and the rest ends up going down the chute. And while I don't fear most good players, I do believe that they often interfere with the holy grail of picking on the fish. (Plus a lot of them are seat plugs).

This reminds me of a Tommy thread long ago where he described the other good players kind of avoiding confrontations with each other to a certain extent, there being fish in the game. He said something about how if (I forget specifcs) had occurred, that would have meant war. So now it occurrs to me that this tacit semi-truce with other good players could be quite beneficial in a way, stylistically speaking (if others are doing it too), in that it helps prevent you and others from interfering too much with the holy goal of picking on the fish.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Let’s say you’re at 20/40 table and playing with 8 equally bad players. You make $40/hr at this game.

4 seats open up at the 40/80 table. 4 of the 20/40 players from your table move over and you follow. In the other 4 seats at the 40/80 table there are players who play just as well as you.

Would you make the same, more, or less at the 40/80 table per hour?

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw Gabe this evening at HWP so he posed this question verbally. After a few minutes thought, I told Gabe that the $40/80 game has to be more profitable, assuming that the reason the opponents are bad is typical - that is they are too loose preflop and go too far with their hands post flop.

If the opponents were bad because they are all weak-tight nits, I'd rather have twice as many all to myself at the half size limit. But since you can't find a table full of weak-tight nits in Los Angeles (except perhaps in a bad low limit Omaha game), I felt the assumptions from the paragraph above are reasonable.

Essentially, with a table half full of loose opponents and the other half players who play as tough as you, the typical pots will feature two or three loose players with one or two of the tougher players. Often you will be one of or the only tough player. OTOH, when you are the only solid player in the game, you will all too often be waiting on the sidelines, watching the others play.

The other problem (not mentioned to Gabe) is that if you are in a super good loose game, a great player like Gabe does only slightly better than a very good player (like me), mostly because it's going to take the best hand to win and the decisions at the table are relatively simple.

Anyway, I thing the main thing Gabe was looking for was to see that mike l. was wrong again [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img].

~ Rick

[snakehead]

I thought about this one for a while today. the problem I have with your situation is that you only make $40/hr in the game with 8 bad players. if that is the case, you should prefer the 20-40 because the difference between your skill and theirs isn't great enough for you to make more in the 40-80.

I think a more realistic problem would be that you are making $60/hr in the 20-40, so could you expect to make more in the 40-80? I think at this win rate the games would be of equal expectation.

[snakehead]

ok then, I'll bite. what's the difference between more $ and more bb/hr?