Loose Games -EV? - Page 6

Zygote · #51 07-26-2005, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me one twoplustwo book that says that your swings are larger when playing loose-calling-station versus tight-aggressive players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Psychology of Poker dumbass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, i don't own that book. Would you mind posting the piece where this is discussed? I would be flabbergasted to see this validated as it would directly contradict advice given in other 2+2 books and articles.

Rudbaeck · #52 07-26-2005, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me one twoplustwo book that says that your swings are larger when playing loose-calling-station versus tight-aggressive players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Psychology of Poker dumbass.

[/ QUOTE ]

If so we now know that PoP was wrong in that regard. It can easily be verified that a 2BB/100 winner at 2/4 on Party will have a lower SD than a 2BB/10 winner at 15/30. (The latter game being tight and aggressive, while the former is pretty loose and passive.)

Justin A · #53 07-26-2005, 07:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have to rethink the conclusions you have drawn from that article. The reason you need a higher bankroll when you begin to play 15-30 is, THE PLAYERS ARE BETTER!

They will beat you like a drum.

Also take the time to realize that the passage you quote is in reguards to a beginning professional player so it assumes that you have to buy lunch and pay rent so unless you want to be homeless, you need more cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Steamboatin,
Please give up your argument with Zygote because you are making yourself look foolish. Most consistent wins and small standard deviation comes from playing loose passive opponents, end of story.

steamboatin · #54 07-26-2005, 08:39 PM

Here is an excerpt from the OP
[ QUOTE ]
The interesting thing is that I noticed last week about 10K hands into my PT stats (I had just started a new database for the limit/site) that I was doing much (300-400%)better at tables where the avg. flop seen was ~24% or below. Since then, I have been specifically targetting "tight" games, and averaging 8 BB/100 (up from my overall of 5.9)
When I think about it, in live play I generally do better when my opponents play better as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unsustainable, no way you win more from tight players than loose.

[ QUOTE ]
but overall I don't really buy the Sklansky-esque idea that you want bad players drawing against you- I think in loose games their combined sucking power can become favorite to a solid player even over a fairly long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody said the loose game was also passive, just loose that was all that was said. The tight game was speciically described as weak-tight.

You will have to show me some documentation or where to find it in a 2+2 book to convince me that you don't get more suckouts and have bigger swings in a loose game than in a weak tight one.

xniNja · #55 07-27-2005, 02:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You will have to show me some documentation or where to find it in a 2+2 book to convince me that you don't get more suckouts and have bigger swings in a loose game than in a weak tight one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I agree with that... but hey, someone read my hypothetical scenario & explain to me why winning many small pots can't yield more profit than a few large pots, if the respective probabilities are different enough? I haven't been refuted.

imported_anacardo · #56 07-27-2005, 04:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You will have to show me some documentation or where to find it in a 2+2 book to convince me that you don't get more suckouts and have bigger swings in a loose game than in a weak tight one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I agree with that... but hey, someone read my hypothetical scenario & explain to me why winning many small pots can't yield more profit than a few large pots, if the respective probabilities are different enough? I haven't been refuted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refute it thus: The respective probabilities won't be different enough. Your argument assumes they can be, and they can't, as the odds of a tight, competent player in a limit game holding the best hand on the river vs the amount of money that will be in the pot shift along a fairly simple proportional curve that always rewards loose action. I doubt this is instantly clear without mathematical examples, but I'm very tired, so I'll just assure you that your prerequisites are not possible. Not unless your specific mastery of weak-tight tables is so incredible that you can maestro incorrect fold after incorrect fold.

Rudbaeck · #57 07-27-2005, 05:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Unsustainable, no way you win more from tight players than loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true! A true statement would be "No way optimal play wins more from tight players than loose." There are plenty of possible reasons a specific player can show a better profit in a slightly tougher game, most of them psychological.

And is OP playing limit or no limit? There is alot to be said in favor of people who fold way too much in NL. (If he even dreams his win rate is sustainable he plays NL.)

xniNja · #58 07-27-2005, 05:40 AM

I play both, but the post is admittedly about Limit only.

I understand your argument against my premise of the difference in probability... I don't claim to have perfectly adapted my game for weak-tight opposition, but I do think I have an extra % edge in each of those probabilities because of it. Whether or not that edge is enough to offset the volumes of the pot is debatable, it may not be, I admit my statistical sample is not large enough to tell. However, would it not be theoretically possible granted your play influenced the respective probabilities beyond the fall of the cards?

Edit: I'm going to play some low limit on UB (I think it would be a loose game) while playing my "weak-tight" games and compare about 50K hands.. would this be a significant comparison?

Rudbaeck · #59 07-27-2005, 06:42 AM

Unfortunately no. Your confidence interval after 50k hands is still pretty darn big.

And there is no way on god's green earth you can sustain your current winrate unless your opponents are colluding to make you win! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

steamboatin · #60 07-27-2005, 07:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I refute it thus: The respective probabilities won't be different enough. Your argument assumes they can be, and they can't, as the odds of a tight, competent player in a limit game holding the best hand on the river vs the amount of money that will be in the pot shift along a fairly simple proportional curve that always rewards loose action. I doubt this is instantly clear without mathematical examples, but I'm very tired, so I'll just assure you that your prerequisites are not possible. Not unless your specific mastery of weak-tight tables is so incredible that you can maestro incorrect fold after incorrect fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't understand a word of this but I believe it translates to ;

Steamboatin is right, swings are bigger in loose games.

I found some Sklansksy to back me up also. "Getting the Best of It" page 85 under the Chapter "Why you Lose in a Good Game". I suck at typing so I am not going to quote it here.

In a weak tight game the hand is often decided without a showdown and you usually only get called when you are beat. Weak-tighties will check top pair on the flop and then let you bet their hand when you make middle pair on the turn. Unless you are stupid, after the second or third time this happens, you don't bet unless you have a hand otherwise you are just spewing chips and rewarding them for being a sissy.

The very nature of a weak tight game insures that pots will be smaller and there will be less action.

Action creates the swings and more action equals bigger swings.

I will concede that it is theorectially possible to experience higher SD in a weak tight game but if this is the case, you might suck at poker.