How many bad players do you want at a limit hold 'em game

nutbag · #1 11-21-04, 08:42 AM

I'm wondering what you guys think is the right number of bad players for a low lmiit hold'em game, because i know I've had some tables where i'd rather have howard lederer some of the spots due the suckouts and everything.
For me, 4 is the highest. After that it kind of just screws with my head trying to figue out how to play. I'm considering this for a live game, does your number change for tourney's?

Penguinfan · #2 11-21-04, 09:21 AM

I got ridiculed beyond belief at RGP for saying this, but I'll hold to it. If it's real low limit then the sky is the limit, play your best hands and hope they hold up, thats all you can do. If it's anything like 5/10 or higher (which I know is still low limit to most players) I don't think I want more than 1 or 2 complete idiots because I like to force the issue and steal a pot here or there and they just never seem to believe that their K high is beat, never. You just don't get the best hand often enough to beat the rake in a these games so you have to out play people eventually and you can't outplay too many idiots at once. Like I said RGP was ruthless at this notion, but it's amazing the love affair they have with Daniel Negreanu and even he said after he busted out of the main event at the WSOP that the players early on were so bad they were unbluffable, basically exactly what I was saying and I was an idiot, yet Daniel a genious, I guess thats what a few bracelets will do for you though.

PShabi · #3 11-21-04, 10:33 AM

You make a very good point here. I wouldn't have slammed you.

johnbaker · #4 11-21-04, 04:52 PM

yeah... whoever called you an idiot on rgp probably doesnt play 5/10 or lower, or they would understand what a crapshoot it is.

remember that charlie frank guy on this forum? he flamed me for saying pretty much the same thing in a post from a few weeks ago. go figure.

-jB

Tilter · #5 11-21-04, 05:04 PM

I think half the table or to a full table. Bad players raise profits, but can also take away your roll. Ride the fishies!

hackers238 · #6 11-21-04, 05:59 PM

hahaha... i like it

Yeah, even though the suckouts do suck, I like having idiots between half of the table and the full table, because they pay you off. You just need to start playing suited hands like Ax, Kx, Qx, or pretty much any suited connectors. When you hit your flush or straight and the board is unpaired, you generally have the nuts, and if you push slowly and steadily almost everyone calls to the river, paying you off nicely.

KK and other hands you have to protect draws against just don't seem to hold up against call stations.

bigjohnstud2o · #7 11-21-04, 06:05 PM

at a 6p table i want 5 and at a 10p table i want 9. The other spot is for me. I will stick to premium hands. Also just bc someone is a fish does not mean they play every hand. They just play more of the drawing hands. I will play like that anyday.

BlibbityBlabbity · #8 11-21-04, 07:09 PM

I would think the optimum number would be 3-5 because IMO you want to be able to isolate one (maybe two) bad players each hand, when you have the better hand. The value of big hands (like AK, KQ) goes down consierably if you end up with 5-6 people in the hand with you.

nutbag · #9 11-21-04, 08:12 PM

I guess I should have defined bad players(at least my definition of them) better. If it's a guy who just makes bad choices, of course you want 9 of them. But usually bad players in my mind are more the calling station/meaningless raisers. In that case I think that no hand really has too much value(high suited conn. maybe being the only real valuable hand) and that 93o or a similar hand hits two pair or a full house every time against KK. In this situation, anything number of bad players greater than five would seem, at least for me, to negate any logical strategy or playing style.

Kidd7138 · #10 11-21-04, 10:58 PM

I think no matter what game you're playing you want as many bad players as possible. As long as you make smart decisions and don't try chasing too many hands you'll come out ahead in the end. Of course you'll get sucked out a couple of times, but as long as you keep playing smart you'll make up for it in the long run.

2Tone · #11 11-22-04, 12:20 AM

Interesting that this tread is going alongside another titled “Playing Down to the Level of the Table.” For me, I’m going to side with those who want no more than half to three quarters of the table to be really weak. Otherwise, I’m going to have to adjust my game more than I am comfortable with. If I feel I’m playing at a very strong table, I’ll tighten up (or move, if I’m online.) But if I am an excessively weak table, I feel I should loosen up to maximize my profit, and it comes back to bite me in the ass.