Less of an edge against multiple bad players? (long)

[rtrombone]

This weekend I played some 9-18 and 15-30 hold 'em at Commerce Casino. I went to the low-limit area because there were some 15 games there the last time I was there, but this time all they had was 9-18. So I decided to play a little and see how these games were.

Well, they were wild. People playing any two suited cards, 7- and 8-handed flops, people capping with all sorts of garbage, you know the deal. I lost a pretty big pot to a drunk who had 7 [img]/forums/images/icons/heart.gif[/img] 3 [img]/forums/images/icons/heart.gif[/img] when he made trip 3s at the turn.

After I lost another pot with AA when this guy chased and made a straight when there were already 3 hearts on board, I went to play 15 (luckily, I broke even at 9-18). It was a good game with a couple jumbo-sized fish, and I was able to win $1100. After the fish got busted and left, I decided to see if I could beat that damn 9-18 game.

Again, a wild table. People would raise and cap with hands like 87s and J8s. This one particular guy would go on tilt streaks and raise five to ten hands in a row pre-flop. Most times we saw the flop 7- or 8- handed. This one hand, I had AA in MP. EP raise, tilt guy cold-called, I 3-bet, raiser capped, tilt guy cold-called. Flop came Jxx. EP bet, tilt guy called, I raised, EP 3-bet, tilt guy cold-called, I capped, both called. Turn was another J and tilt guy took it down with J9 offsuit.

In this 9-18 session I went from $300 (my buy-in) to all-in, back to even, up $200, back to zero. And it wasn't a long session. After I lost $300 I left.

Much of the time I was playing I thought to myself, I can't believe I'm stuck in this game, these guys are clearly worse than the players at my 15 game. I really dislike low-limit because I think they're crapshoots, and these 9-18 games definitely played like 3-6. And I started to develop this theory that good players have less of an edge in wild games with a bunch of loose crazy players than in a normal game.

Here's why:

(1) If every player plays every hand to the river, the game is 100% luck. Whoever happens to get better cards over any given period of time will win. The closer a real game resembles this theoretical "9-way showdown" game, the more it's all luck.

(2) In a wild game, a bad player's loose calls pre- and post-flop aren't as bad as in a normal game. Because of the huge pots and guaranteed multiway action, the bad player won't lose as much from these loose calls. He will get paid big-time when he flops lucky.

(3) Similarly, a good player's folds aren't as good. Pre-flop, it may not be correct to play a hand like 3 [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img] UTG, but this fold isn't as good a play as it is in a normal game. In a wild game, a good player saves less making this fold. Post-flop, it actually becomes correct to chase inside straights and 5-outers, and while it may still be wrong to try and hit a 2-outer, it's not as wrong as it would be in normal game. The positive EV from these laydowns isn't as great.

(4) It is almost impossible to put a person on a hand. You're forced to pay people off where in a normal game you could have mucked based on a good read.

(5) In general, top pair doesn't hold up and you need to make some kind of draw to win. Good players tend to try to play cards that are likely to flop top pair, get heads up, and go from there. Clearly, this doesn't work in a wild game. Even if you make adjustments and play for straights, flushes and sets, you need to get lucky to make a hand. It's a lot harder to flop a straight or flush draw (and get there) or a set than it is to flop top pair. So again luck plays a larger role, and a good player is no luckier than a bad player.

Everyone knows that your variance goes through the roof in a loose, wild game. I had previously felt, though, that your EV was still ok if you made the proper adjustments (playing pocket pairs and decent suited connectors from any position, etc.) Now I'm beginning to think that good players should avoid these games altogether because their hourly rate will not be as high as in a normal game. Luck plays a far larger role in the long run.

Has everyone but me known this all along? What do you guys think?

[Ed Miller]

If you invest your money only on good hands and your opponents will invest their money equally with good and bad hands alike, then you will have a huge edge. Hopefully this is obvious.

In Texas Holdem, we are forced to invest money before we know whether we have a good hand yet or not... to speculate. To adjust, we only speculate on the hands with the best prospects, but we don't really know for sure if we have a strong hand until the river is dealt. Even so, we only speculate on the hands with the best prospects and only bet and raise with hands of the highest quality. Therefore, we obviously have an edge over those who will play any hand.

Because we are speculating, however, it is possible that over a short period of time, bad luck will befall us and the most promising of hands will turn to mush by the river. But over the longterm, this strategy is guaranteed to win. And furthermore, our edge is much greater over these indiscriminate players than it would be against players who pick and choose their hands with more acuity.

[Mike]

Being a low limit player, I can speak to this type of game somewhat. When almost everyone sees the flop your game needs a big adjustment. What is any group 1 -> 3 hand after a flop of 2,4,6; 8,T,Q; 3,J,7 suited or not?

I think where many good players miss on these games is they bring their $XX - $XX playing style to the $x - $x game. Half the table is playing for straights or flushes of any type and the rest are just playing, so big cards lose a lot of power after most flops.

I love group 1 to 3 hands any time in these games. But in these types of games you must not fall in love with your hand. You've either won the hand on the flop or you haven't. The post flop game becomes either gravy or burnt meat.

[gdaily]

Hi,

obviously, you are wrong... When the table is full of fishes that cant defend themself, that is what I call heaven.

BUT, as you say, starting hands change value. Hands like A5 suited go up much in value (normally not playable, now a license to print money), and 98 suited goes a bit up in value. So, if some hands are worth more than in your usual game, some hands must go down... and they are all the big pairs, all the high cards, all the cards that you are used to play "top pair top kicker" for value.

regards
Ola

[nef]

Its not that you have less of an edge against many loose players, but that(once you reach a certain point) you gain less edge for every loose player you add to the game. Your overall edge is not additive, but it does increase as you add bad players.

[rtrombone]

I probably could have phrased my question better. I'm wondering if your edge in a normal game--say one with two other good players, three decent players and three bad players--is better than your edge in a game with one other good player, two decent players and five wild players.

One person said in his response to my post that your edge goes up with the introduction of a bad player, but that the amount by which your edge increases gets smaller with each player. Like diminishing marginal returns.

I'm not sure that there's a point at which you lose edge. When there are three fish in a game, it seems like the better players take turns beating them down. We've all seen this phenomenon. The fish play a lot more hands, lose a lot more pots and go all in and rebuy over and over. The better players play far fewer hands, but when they do they often win.

If there are six fish, though, who are in every pot and ramming and jamming with their K [img]/forums/images/icons/club.gif[/img] 4 [img]/forums/images/icons/club.gif[/img] hands, doesn't the playing field become more even for them? This is I think the heart of my theory. I'm wondering if the wild players benefit from the presence of multiple other wild players in their hands. They protect each other, in a manner of speaking. If they do benefit, doesn't this mean that the good player suffers?

There's probably a better way to articulate this. Maybe I'll give it another shot when I have more time.

[Mano]

I think the problem is what you are defining as "edge". I would guess that your overall EV would go up the more bad players you have in the game. However, if all the other players are always chasing, your variance would probably also increase. In games like these, I would expect to make more money, have larger swings, and a larger bankroll requirement.

[Jimbo]

Rtronbone look at it like this:

You met a stingy genie and he granted you one wish. You wished that evertime you are dealt a hamd of holdem it would be AA but the other players would never realize this. Now how many poor players would you like to have calling and raising your AA? Just 1, 2, 3, or as many as they can fit at the table?

[rtrombone]

What you guys say intuitively makes sense. But I also think that the 5 statements I made in my original post are true. Each of these is a reason why bad players benefit from the presence of multiple other bad players in their game. Each one (I think) is a reason why the playing field becomes more even for everybody.

I'm missing something here. Can someone explain why, despite the fact that the five statements I made are true, a good player's edge actually increases in a wild game? It seems to me that these games are easier to play than normal games, since all you have to do is play for straights, flushes and sets, and then pound, pound, pound when you get a flop you like. Bad players can play this style almost as well as a good player (maybe not almost as well, but you know what I mean--ballpark).

Doesn't this mean that bad players are better off in these games? If this is so, how can good players be better off, too? Or is it not a zero-sum game...

[Mike]

Unless you are willing to invest many more chips than the game is probably worth, then I am very much correct. There comes a point where the probable damage your bankroll easily surpasses the possible gains to your bankroll. That is basic table selection.

What is the difference between a table of fish capping every round and two maniacs capping every round - nothing.

Protecting your bankroll becomes a priority and you can't do that playing tight aggressive in a wild loose raising game.

Usually you make all the poor players cower from your aggressiveness, and now you've turned a loose raising game with poor players into a tight aggressive game and the poor players go where they can have fun. I hope you are ahead at this point because you are not going to see any return on your investment in the near future.