How to deal with passive winners?

[Cerril]

Okay, I know they're playing suboptimally and if I improve and beat them they get crushed, but I'm curious if there's something else I should be doing. Here's the general case:

Passive player plays a moderately too loose selection of hands (between 30-55%), almost never raises preflop (anything from only top PPs to never) will play some draws but usually only made hands. He's not a rock though, and will certainly call down with losing hands. He'll also tend to check/call down TPTK, 2p, trips, sets, and just about anything. In fact, you're not sure you've ever seen him raise.

Does this guy (and I think I'm describing a player type we've all played against) deserve any special treatment? He's never worth too many bets when you win, and he'll end up sucking more bets out of you when he wins than many other players.

In fact, that's the primary reason I'm asking - unintentionally, he ends up playing shockingly well against your marginal holdings - he'll check/call down against your bets with top pair, moderate kicker (ATs say) and then turn over two pair or AQ or something else almost anyone would have bet or raised with. You'd have been glad to have folded but instead you end up betting to the end with pretty good confidence you're way ahead in the hand.

Or am I just too worried about something that happens too infrequently?

[brettbrettr]

Stop pushing marginal hands against them--bet them I think, but don't be inclined to value bet the river as much. By not pushing his strong hands he's saving you mucho dinero.

[frank_iii]

Are you putting him on your buddy list?

I don't quite understand the problem and this behavior does not seem all that infrequent to me. Calling stations are all over my games. You say, "He's never worth too many bets when you win" and that's maybe true when you're heads up. And we've all pumped one bet in every round only to be shown a big hand that he called all the way but didn't raise. But, even then, you don't lose too much. But these guys are padding all the other hands you're winning against multiple players. They're the ones who make value betting/raising worthwhile.

Such problems! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Bill Smith]

There are a couple contradictions in your scenario that really answer your question.

1. If Mr. Passive is playing >30% of his hands, these hands include hands you would not consider playing, such as Ace-rag. Therefore, while he will occasionally catch 2-pair or outkick you, that is certainly no reason to discontinue aggressive play.

Let's use your scenario: You have ATs and catch TP. If you know he will play any ace, why let up? If it comes down to a pure kicker battle, you will win more than lose.

2. Saying "he's never worth too many bets when you win" and "he'll end up sucking more bets out of you when he wins" is probably one of the most common fish stories we hear in this forum. If he is not raising any of your bets, the same amount of money is going in, and the only question that matters is "Are you winning these scenarios >50% of the time?" If you are, and #1 says you should be, then keep making those value bets. Mr. Passive won't do it for you.

3. The only "special treatment" you need to be careful of is not trying to bluff this person. If he has something, he isn't folding. Don't push a marginal hand too far, and be happy to check a river through if you miss a draw.

Final note: It is very easy to get frustrated when people call down with a winner, but keep in mind the bets they miss by not raising 2-pair or trips. Usually, the size of the pot and strength of your hand dictate whether or not you should be in the pot. If you're in a scenario you are likely to win, bet, bet, bet.

[davelin]

Agreed. I like to think that in some ways you're making money (by not losing more BBs) when these players don't push back with their made hands. As long as you're not pushing mediocre hands, you'll win against them more times than not.

[radek2166]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you putting him on your buddy list?

I don't quite understand the problem

[/ QUOTE ]

well said. These guys used to drive me nuts. Now I just tighten up. Then BOOM!!!!!!! Stick it to'em when I have a great hand hopeing they got a piece of the board and will call me down with it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Goon2]

Be thankful they are saving you money.

[Cerril]

You're right, I am speaking mostly about getting heads up with these guys, where you're 50/50. I'm also specifically thinking marginal hands, middle pair or maybe top pair with a middle kicker.

I was definitely thinking this isn't something to worry about and just profit in the long run, but every time I see the guy turn over AK and rake a pot I've been betting in LP all the way with AT or KJ or maybe even worse, I wonder if I should have lost less.

[InchoateHand]

Uh...you did lose less. He didn't raise you (which you should have correctly called unless you had a rock solid read of him as a rock). Thank the passive ones, and continue to do the betting for everyone, both when you are ahead and when you are behind.

[Cerril]

Well I'm thinking two specific situations - and I don't feel like I'm losing money to these guys but if I'm not extracting the most (or losing too much when I'm behind) then it's about the same thing.

First, when I'm behind but with a hand where I might slow down or fold if I get raised or bet into (e.g. second pair, top kicker where I get checked to on every street). I'm hoping some hands like this will become obvious while I'm playing so I can post them - obviously specific examples of play would be nice.

The other contradiction about losing too much and winning too little is based around heads up play. A calling station should be just funneling his money away and of course in multiway pots it's true. In the smaller pots, especially heads up, I feel like my edge isn't as great as it should be and am trying to figure out where to make more or lose less.

Maybe against someone I know might be holding any halfway decent cards I -should- avoid value betting the river with a moderate hand, even if I'm checked to. That'll lose me one bet if I'm ahead, save me one bet if I'm behind, and save me two bets if I'm way behind. I suppose I'd need to be ahead well over 60% to justify betting into these guys...