theoretical question stuck in my craw

[tinhat]

Being mostly unk here this wil probably sound like "wah, wah, I can't win" and it is a little of that (wouldn't be posting it otherwise). But it's also a serious question that keeps crossing my mind.

I play only party and $1/2 6m; more often than not I am surrounded by 5 players with vpips in the 50-80+ range (with a mix of aggression but IMM the important thing is they're in lots of pots). Obviously these are the guys you would like at your table but my question is, is it too many?

Somewhere in sshe/hepfap a point is made that the reason real loose players mostly lose in ring is because of the combination of players which aren't as loose keeping the really loose player(s) somewhat in check. Is it likely a/the corrollary is also true? Too many loose players keeps a single tight(er) player in check?

[wackjob]

No. You are just making an excuse for losing. Give me a table with 5 players seeing every flop, every time, and I will get rich.

The logic of it is simple: yes you will get sucked out on and lose more, but you WAY more than make up for these extra suckouts by all that extra dead & chaser money in the pots you win.

[krimson]

There is no reason for not being able to destroy a game with 5 players like this... if your a winning player.

[aslowjoe]

Those kind of games it seems you can do you really or really bad. That many people seing the flop can add big time to your variance. I would not shy away from a game like that because you will eventualy do real well. You do have to adjust. Play more suited connectors pp's and shoot for the big hands you W$SF will go do down in these games but you r profit should be sweet over time.

Having said that I would prefer to hace a 22/5/1 guy sit to my left with all those other 50-80 players.

[tinhat]

[ QUOTE ]
No. You are just making an excuse for losing. Give me a table with 5 players seeing every flop, every time, and I will get rich.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somehow we made the leap from OP to "5 players seeing every flop"; I never said that. And it's important - this abundance of dead money to make up for losses doesn't exist. Typically it's me and two of the five.

A shallow thought-exercise: Consider a session where all you're dealt is marginal hands and you are not running hot or even warm. But you aren't running cold either. (Marginal hands occur most frequentlly so have a greater impact on the bottom line). Correctly playing these hands against a random two rotten players out of the five but never the same two, where is it unreasonable to think that the converse of the sshe/hepfap statement isn't true?

Am I better than any two of the five individually? Sure am. But am I better than the cumulative odds of any two of the five as a group playing almost any hand regardless of action and taking it to showdown against my marginal hands which were never going to be better than 50/50 to begin with ("losing" also includes bets lost when folding these hands before sd)? Is anybody?

Mike

[rory]

If you are against two players your hand only has to win >33% of the time. You can lose the majority of the time and still win money.