Players Skill Comparison

[cardsharkdave]

In your home games do you sometimes feel like your skill exceeds those at the table. And if you played more skilled players you would actually do better. I learned HPFAP and I now follow it, but it seems like I would be better off against better players.

Also, what do you think makes a player more skillfull than another?

Do you ever feel like this or is it just me?
Give me some feedback on players skill.

[leon]

"In your home games do you sometimes feel like your skill exceeds those at the table. "

Always.

"And if you played more skilled players you would actually do better. "

No.

"I learned HPFAP and I now follow it, but it seems like I would be better off against better players."

You wouldn't. But save the fancy plays that are in HPFAP and play solid, boring, showdown poker.

"Also, what do you think makes a player more skillfull than another?"

Everything that has ever been discussed. Ability to manage position, extract max EV from a situation, knowing which cards to play, knowing your man, etc etc. Knowing what makes one player better than another is knowing what it takes to be great at poker.

I've seen this thread a lot recently in a lot of posts- this whole notion that playing against "better" players would be better for your game. I think most of it stems from the fact that these people are looking for less variance- they want their good hands to hold up all the time, and calling stations are going to suck out on you more than anyone else. But there's no more profitable type of player to play against than a loose passive player. People who want to play against opponents who "know they should fold" are just deluding themselves, or they don't have a big enough bankroll to handle the swings. Seriously, if you had a great hand and you bet, would you want an opponent to a)call and pay you off the vast majority of the time, or b) "know" to fold and save the money?

Remember, over time we're all going to be dealt AA the same amount of times, and we're going to get AA cracked the same amount of times. But if I lose less than you when I get mine cracked, I win. And if I bet and get called by 3 people when I win and you only get called by 2, I'm ahead. Just think of it that way.

I will concede that against more skillful opponents more advanced plays come into the game. But these are almost necessitated by the quality of your opponents. If you're interested in developing advanced skills and becoming a great player, than playing against better players has merit. But if you're just interested in money, the weaker players the better.

Leon

[cardsharkdave]

Thanks leon for your help. I will use your insight to my advantage.

[SirFoldsAlot]

!

[SirFoldsAlot]

[7stud]

Nice post leon.

If you ever get in a tight game with excellent players, where everyone folds everytime you get a good hand, and they bet aggressively into your marginal hands extracting one or two bets and then forcing you to fold, you will pray for a loose game with bad players. In those tight games with excellent players, winning one extra bet seems all but impossible, and putting your opponent on a hand is fraught with uncertainty.

[SittingBull]

to the sound advice of my fellow posters. However,I can entertain u with a short story.
i was speaking to a good stud player who stated that he prefers to play with players "Who know what they are doing".
Of course,I did not let him know that his statement was one of the MOST ASSININE statements that I've heard in awhile.
HappyPokering, [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
SittingBull

[Cosimo]

Players who think they would do better against better opponents are more often right than not. I think many of these players are new to poker theory--players like me. You can bluff, semi-bluff, and steal against tight opponents. Starting hand criteria given in books match the tougher games. If someone else bets into you, raises, or reraises, he is more likely to have a good hand if he is a good player.

A good player can beat the looser table, but that requires skill. Having read and reread a few books, and a few hundred hours at the table, does me very little good when 8-9 people see the flop, 3-5 regularly see the river, those runner-runner draws are always there, and half the field will raise with bottom pair. HEPFAP doesn't teach me how to beat that game straight off the top.

Maybe I should back off here; I am not sure that it takes more skill to beat extremely loose players. But I definitely think that "the books" cover play against midlimits players much more clearly.

-Cosimo

[leon]

Hi Cos:

"Players who think they would do better against better opponents are more often right than not."

They're not.

"You can bluff, semi-bluff, and steal against tight opponents. "

This is true, b/c against good players you can a) put them on a hand, and b) they can put you on a hand and fold. But these plays are necessitated by the quality of your opponents. True, you might have MORE plays you can use, but overall your profit goes down. It does no good if you can check raise good players, occasionally bluff, etc but your overall win is smaller. And it will be smaller simply b/c no one will pay off like a weak player. Against a good line up, YOU can also be bluffed, semi bluffed, stolen against, etc. It hurts your bottom line, period.

"Starting hand criteria given in books match the tougher games. "

Yes, but in a good loose game with idiots you can play a lot more hands simply b/c they pay off like a slot machine when you hit. Dynasty for example has advocated playing any pocket pair utg, and it's sound advice. The assumption is you're a skillful enough player that you FOLD when you miss, and don't chase like a fish. What more can you ask for- a situation where you can play more hands, and you rarely ever have to guess where you stand?

"A good player can beat the looser table, but that requires skill. "

I'd say it requires less skill than beating a tough table.

"Having read and reread a few books, and a few hundred hours at the table, does me very little good when 8-9 people see the flop, 3-5 regularly see the river, those runner-runner draws are always there, and half the field will raise with bottom pair. HEPFAP doesn't teach me how to beat that game straight off the top."

I agree. And that's the point. You don't need all that [censored]. Just make the best hand and pound away.

"But I definitely think that "the books" cover play against midlimits players much more clearly."

Absolutely. And again, if you can beat a tough game you should have no trouble beating a easier game. The books are geared to the tougher games b/c a) there's more to write about, b) it's more interesting, and c) it's helpful to learn a lot, assuming you can beat a situation where you don't need to know that much, rather than the reverse.

Again, I think it takes less skill to beat a no-fold 'em hold 'em game, but it does require adjustments. Play hands that can make big hands. Stay away from unsuited shite. And in general, just ram your hands the whole way. They'll pay you off and you'll love it. Grab a big roll to handle the swings, gear up emotionally to handle the inevitable suck outs, and you're all set.

Leon

[Gall]

Playing against a "better" player then you can be good, if he think he can outplay you.

I recently played against some guys how are slightly better then me. But I'm aware of that, and they are not [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

thats the only advantage I can figure out