Bad Players Harder To Beat Consistently Than Mediocre-Average Players?

[ean]

The more bad players the better.

True in an overall sense, but not true in every sitatation. For example, it has certainly been true that for top pros this Moneymaker Effect of swarms of questionable players, definitely makes them a lot of money in a "trickle down" (or should it be trickle up" in this case? sense. But in the sense of them being able to win the Main Event, it has made it MUCH harder.

 

[GCB]

If the table has so many bad players that you can't beat it, consider switching to a table with more good players that you can beat. :listen:

Which presents the question, if you can beat good players but not bad players, does that make you a bad player or a good player? :hmmmm:

 

[GCB]

But I haven't encountered any micro limits tables with players so bad I just could find no way to beat them.

I guess that means I'm not good enough a player, since I haven't found players who are so bad they beat me. :stupid:

 

[pantin007]

im pretty sure the players who u think are fish are probably better than u but u dont understand the plays they make

 

[jolietdusty]

It all comes down to switching your stlye to beat them and most of the time you have to be very tight against them playing only premium hands

 

[Xavier]

im pretty sure the players who u think are fish are probably better than u but u dont understand the plays they make

Its simple enough to tell the difference between a strong aggressive player and a maniac or donk.
I look up the stats of players I am talking about who suck out on me with stupid cards and they normally have a -ROI.
My ROI is 20%.