How many fish in the barrel? (long rant)

[DeuceKicker]

I like fish and maniacs as much as the next guy, but for the past month it seems I've been getting nibbled to death by them.

I realize that, for the most part and in the long run, they play a losing style of poker, but they're dragging me down with them!

Two orbits ago I had my Aces cracked by a guy who played 94o UTG, called my raise, and caught runner runner 4,9. This orbit my flopped nut flush was beat by a guy playing Q5 LMP, who caught a Q,Q runner runner full house. Next orbit it will be the guy who calls a raise in the SB with 62o and flops a straight to beat my pocket Queens. Then there's the guy who has flat-out bluffed a nothing hand four out of six hands that he's shown, but is holding AA every time I play back at him.

I take notes on loose, fishy, and maniacal play, and usually these guys end up breaking even or down after a while (though a few end up WAY ahead) but it often sees me down more BB than any of them.

The pots I do win are small winners compared to the miracle draws that suck 10BB away from me once an hour.

It is at the point where I now dread to see raising hands (especially an unmade hand like AK or AQ). If I'm in late position and there are four callers plus the blinds in front of me, I know that only the small blind (and even that's iffy) is going to fold. I feel like my pre-flop raise is just contributing to the pot for the guy in MP playing 92s when his flush hits.

Part of the problem is that my cards have been dead for the past month. I'm winning about 6% of my hands, and seeing less than 20% of the flops. But when I finally wake up, it seems I either win only the blinds or lose my shirt.

OK enough of the rant. My question is, what is the optimal number of loose, fishy, and maniacle players at a table? I think I'd like nine loose players with me, but it's multiple fish (who will play ANY two cards) and maniacs (SLIGHTLY tighter than fish, but raise constantly and bluff regularly) that seem to kill me. Are three loose players worth one fish? Are two fish worth one maniac?

Exaggeration aside, it seems that even one true maniac and one true fish at a table are enough to cause me to have a losing session. Am I just having the month from hell? How many really bad players is enough to make you find another table?

[bisonbison]

I don't like a ton of variance, so I don't tend to play at maniacal tables where it repeatedly gets reraised preflop, but I'm happy with any number of loose-passive calling station fish. Sure, they suck out on you, but basic poker will beat the living poop out of them in the long run.

If you're picking good multiway starting hands, betting for value and releasing when you miss, you're going to end up winning in the long run.

In the short run, post some hands and we'll give you some feedback.

[me454555]

I can sympathize with your post. A similar thing happened to me last night. 1 maniac, 3-betting pf w/A6o and 9To, ended up w/pocket aces when I caught my pocket queens. 2 hands later he had QQ when I had AK and didn't hit. Point is, you just can't prepare for it. It happens to all of us at some point in time. Whne this happens to me, I like to take a few nights off and reread sections of HEPFAP or WLLHE to improve my game. Just know that as long as your playing solid poker, this kind of thing will end and fish will be calling you down to the river w/their pocket pairs when you flop trips [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

As for your questions, usually I like to have 1 or 2 maniacs MAX at the table. Anything more than that is too much to handle and I start to play sloppy. As for calling stations, 4 or 5 is a good number. Just be sure play more passively when you don't flop a hand. Big overcards get me in a lot of trouble against those types. If you don't hit the flop, toss it. Just play ABC poker. Bet when you have a hand, fold when you don't have the pot odds to chase. DON"T BLUFF, its futile.

Keep playing the tight aggressive brand of poker that your used to but make sure to make adjustments for the table.

Against the passive calling stations, play less AJ, KQ, and QJ. Play more suited connecters and low pairs pf b/c you'll be upagainst mulitple opponets and the pot odds to draw.

Against maniacs, do the opposite, play less suited connectors and low pairs. Play more AJ, KQ, and QJ b/c you'll likely to be up against fewer opponents.

Hope this helps a lil bit to get you over the hump. Don't forget to post your hands here. As everyone who posts here says "Posting hand on this board has improved my poker so much. Don't take criticism too harsh b/c we're all here to help."

[scotnt73]

i look for tables with 3-4 people seeing the flop. any more than that and i have trouble making much money. if we are talking maniacs 1 maniac is plenty for me. i do prefer passive fishy tables so i can play all my pairs to the flop if possible.

[umdpoker]

dude, i feel your pain. however, i really do love these tables now that i have played enough hands to see that in the long run lots of money can be made from a table with 6 people calling down with anything. i don't like more than one maniac at a table though, because i hate getting caught in the middle of a raise-fest between morons that have nothing but make me doubt that my tptk are good. you can definitely make money off of them too though. just remember that poker can be very streaky. i had 2 days in a row where i got sucked out on constantly and made $2 in 10 hrs of play. of course last night, they weren't hitting their gutshots and i made over $100 at .5/1 tables. probability is a bitch.

[Sixth_Rule]

.01 .02 at UB
They see anywhere from 48 % of the flops to 75%
i just started nut i am up 100 BB (which is 2 dollars [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

i play about 22 % of hands but am trying to cut out hands like A4s and A5 s when i don't think i'll get 5 callers and though i might start playing K9s and up with 6+ callers in the pot

i'm still new and impatient but i get upset when i have a loosing hour. so until i can grind out 10 - 20 $ on 0.01 0.02 won't know what a fishy 0.50 1.00 game loks like.

By the way i am not giving advice, i know i am almost playing play money. I am just talking

[bisonbison]

There is no better way to learn to play then to play for very little and work your way up. I assume at 1c/2c stakes you may be upset over your play in a losing session, but you'll never feel anxious about your stake. If you lose 50BB, you can peel another dollar off the bankroll and try again.

[MrDannimal]

The penny stakes are very good for getting used to the software and such. It's also good for you getting real practice with seeing cards and all that.

It's not, however, good for getting a feel of how most people play poker online. Too many people (esp. at the .01/.02 lvl) treat it like play chips, so you get wild callers and goofy starting hands.

As soon as you're comfortable and have the roll, I'd move to .25/.50. The play is still fishy, but you cut out some of the truly loose and get a better feel of what you'll see as you play long-term (and move up levels).

I had planned to play a few weeks at .01/.02 when I started, but after 4-5 sessions I knew I'd learned what I could and moved up to .25/.50. I've turned my $100 into over $600 and am at 1/2 now over at UB.

Good luck!

[DeuceKicker]

Good responses, all. I guess the number of maniacs you want at the table is related to how much variance you can tolerate. I prefer low variance, so I'll try to keep it at one full-blown maniac at a time.

I'm stepping down off the ledge.