Are you better playing against good or bad players???

Seems like a daft question, but it was prompted by this answer to a post

Pokerstars having more super micro buyins to play in.. BUT (a big BUT) they are sooooo fishy that it is pathetic. Even Pokerstars buyins up to the $10 level are really bad (although the $10's aren't really bad). Sng's or MTT's at $3 & under on Pokerstars are soooooo bad that they might have you tossing your computer out the window.

Click to expand...

I think I am correct thinking that if u play in any poker game where u r `sucked out` on a regular basis, the idea would be to tighten up and play strong cards.

I would also guess that u will lose lots of hands when u r a big fav, but win some massive pots when u get your chips in good.

I do think, however, that loose/ fishy players r harder to contend with in MTT because of `when` the fish catch. Nothing worse than playing a great game, making zero mistakes and your set of aces on the flop being taken out by runner runner 8 high flush!!!

The very few freerolls and micro buy-in tournies I've played I've done well in. Small sample size, but once you get a decent stack it becomes very straightforward to play "good" poker and accumulate chips.

Bad players are bad because they are exploitable.

I have to agree that this is not a good question. The whole idea of poker is that over time the better players will win. But you have to consider variability, the luck factor that lets a weaker player win a variable percantage of chips. Different games have different levels of variation, and so do different stakes. No-limit Hold 'Em has a higher variation than limit Hold 'Em, because a bad player can make up for alot of bad play with one lucky hand. Similarly, pot-limit has a higher variation than fixed-limit. Omaha Hi-Lo probably has the least variation of any game because it is the most complex. Lower stakes games have higher variation, because people are more willing to chase. Early levels of tournaments have a high variation because many people are playing "Chip up early or go home." Late levels of tournaments have a low variation because the Ladder Principle makes people play tight.

So it's not really good players versus bad players that are causing this "Bad Beat Syndrome"; rather it is high variation versus low variation. When you play high variation games for high variation stakes, you are going to eat some bad beats.

GDRileyx said:

I No-limit Hold 'Em has a higher variation than limit Hold 'Em, because a bad player can make up for alot of bad play with one lucky hand. Similarly, pot-limit has a higher variation than fixed-limit. Omaha Hi-Lo probably has the least variation of any game because it is the most complex.
So it's not really good players versus bad players that are causing this "Bad Beat Syndrome"; rather it is high variation versus low variation.

Click to expand...

Very insightful observations, quite impressed. Comment about the Omaha HL, and I take it you mean FL, or else it probably holds no water at all. But why would it hold the least variation on acct of its complexity? From all I've observed and read about Omaha, and lesser variation comes from the fixed limit, and the fact you'll split the pot more often than the HI variation.

On the 2nd point, just think that over enough time, the variation won't matter. And I'll bet you'd agree to that. It's just a matter of a good player being able to ride out the variation 1) financially (obviously) 2) mentally (don't let bad beats tilt you and/or change your game, etc.)

That comes from a book on Omaha, which claims it has the least variation. I agree with the book, because the harder the game, the fewer dummies play.

Omaha is the same as Hold 'Em, in the regard that no-limit has the highest variation, pot-limit has less, and fixed-limit has the least.

Over enough time, you are right, the variation doesn't really matter. But Omaha should give you lower peaks and shallower valleys than Hold 'Em.

A good comparison would be national economies. A country like the US has more ups and downs than a highly regulated economy like france. France will never have the big booms and bubbles the US has, and the bad times will never be as bad.

GDRileyx said:

That comes from a book on Omaha, which claims it has the least variation. I agree with the book, because the harder the game, the fewer dummies play.

Click to expand...

Great post, it all makes a lot of sense. Funny, I'm currently reading Hwang's Omaha book. The chapter on straight draws alone, including the types of 'wraps' (Broadway, Maine to Spain, lower/middle/upper gappers, 2 gappers) and possible outs (some nut, some not) for every straight-draw type starting hand is enough to send anyone racing to the medicine cabinet.

Also funny, on page 1, he says "In PLO, or any Omaha game for that matter - the difference between a good players and a great player is not nearly as great as the distance between a good player and a bad player."

He agrees with the lesser volatility, especially for HL. Far less of a bankroll needed than for holdem. So good analogy to France.

personally i like playing vs some1 better than me. that way i can learn, practice and improve my game. theres nothing i can learn from calling station or random button pushers.

I just love it when after a tournament is over, the so called nowledgable
players sit down at a table I am playing at and then proceed to lose. And bemoan all the stupid plays made at the table. LOL I just nod and silently agree and take thier money. I mean if you raise with AA and get 8 callers,
welcome to low linit.

I think I am a better player when I play against someone who plays more like me....I am a conservative Tight player. It seems when I get involved on a table with loose players who raise every hand or push alot with junk I tend to not do as well.
I wish I could learn to switch gears and fit right in with theses players but Its so hard to make my mind work that way.
Thats what I def. need to work on though...always learning in the game of poker.

I would much rather play a tourney with the 500 best MTT players in the world. I wouldn't get sucked out on as much and I actually might have a shot to win.

Don't make the mistake lots of players do and lower your starting hands to fit in. But definetly play more more suited connecters, small pairs, etc.
When you hit the flop or are getting great odds on a draw, get agressive.
What more can you ask for? these sort of games should be your most profitable. Dont forget to congratuate the player who hits a one outer on you LOL I always say something like, thats why I raised but I couldn't get you to lay it down.

Bad players...because they're bad.

you are better off against bad players because in the long run better players will win more... the key is limiting your losses and maximizing your gains

YEa bad beats happen more against the bad players as they are idiots calling on gut shots and needing runner runner...but they hit and you lose all your chips because you put them all-in being the heavy favorite... say the best thing is to avoid that hot player and play your good hands effectivly...fold when you feel you are beat

it seems I do worse when people just keep going all in hand after hand cause eventually I just give up figure they have nothing since they keep going all in so then I just go all in and of course even though I have good cards and they have bad ones they still win so I would have to say I do worse with donks at the table

playing against all in players

yeah playing against these kind of players can be frustrating but if you play patieint you can still get a good roll going just remember patience is the game and you will be winning in no time

I agree with the person who said that you should just play tight and accumulate chips...then just play good poker. I play tight especially until the rebuy is finished...the players are crazy during rebuys and a 2,7, is often enuff cards to let someone go all in...In tourneys I prefer playing bad players..they'll eventually be easier to read.

When playing bad players you need to be upfront with what your doing.
i.e. bluff alot less and bet your good hands

When playing good player you can use the full atillery of tactics to out play them.

Easy money with the bad, but far more interesting poker against the good.

i think playing with bad players they tend to play junk cash lucky 2 pair with there 26 off or something like that playing with good people unlikly to get that

Avoid playing small pots against experienced players

The best players in the world rely on small-ball poker when playing in no limit hold'em tournaments. And though it is the optimal strategy, it's not meant for players of all skill levels. You must have superior hand-reading and people-reading skills for it to be effective.

I'd rather play the donks than BE the donk.

Without a doubt I play better against better players. I think it is because you can rely on the good players making the right call instead of going all in donk style with an A Rag.

honestly, there is more to be said about someone who loses a good hand to a good player. i find that playing against average-good poker players makes me think more, making me play stronger. playing against weak/bad poker players, while easier to build a stack, is more frustrating than rewarding to me. the all in style makes me question an otherwise solid hand, then, after getting a feel for how the donk is playing, you of course risk calling the first good hand he/she might be playing. it's one of the biggest turn offs about online poker.

chris

if i could i would probably play with only pros 1) cuz you learn alot from them and usually become better 2) alot less suck outs 3) advanually you will become a pro yourself. yes you will probably lose alot of money at first but i would consider it like taking a paying class.

I'd rather play against good players because I'm sick of losing hands with some donks who flop full house holding 10,3o off position...