|
|
#1
11-30-04, 12:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Am I the only person...
who would rather play against good players. Everyone always says that they found this huge fish, and that this site or that is full of fish. I hate fish. Yes, its probably true that I would take them to the cleaners in the long run; however, I play on a limited basis (work and family take a huge chunk of my time), and it seems that every time I get involved with a so called fish that it is their lucky day. I have had much more success against good players, and I can't stand playing in games where everyone just calls the blinds and 7 of 9 see the flop. As soon as I stopped playing the very low limit junk, I became a winning player (thanks in part to a nice size win in a live tourney). Everyone wants fish, fish, fish, but I like the competition and more controlled style of play. Seems like I'm the only one. Am I?
|
|
#3
11-30-04, 12:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mix
I want a mix I guess. I do not want the whole table calling my AK raises with A5o, because someone will hit. I do want people calling to the river with 2nd best pair. Good players do not do this. I do want people going for there gut shot straight draws. I want enough good players where I can induce folds with my weaker raising hands like 99,TT, etc..
|
|
#5
11-30-04, 12:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i prefer to have a mix
i dont know why you guys would want to have so many fish in a tourny so badly... look at all the pros that get screwed over by the fish in the wsop... its not because some new player takes them to school, its because these people call with gutshots and ace draws and hit them every once in a while, and that 1 time the pro goes broke. -jB |
|
#6
11-30-04, 12:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
hey
alot of the pro's went broke because they thought they where so much better then the internet guys and tried to outplay them with so-so hands. Not saying all the internet guys where great but they made it there by beating a large field to get there and they deserved to sit there as much as the pro's!!!! Now for the scrubs that never play poker but had a extra 10k sitting in between the couch cushions they didnt deserve it. |
|
#8
11-30-04, 03:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
it wasnt just pros overplaying their hands against inexperienced players... the newbies screwed the pros more than the pros screwed themselves.... remember how that one jackass kept betting into sam farha onto to catch a pair at the end and practically break sammy's tourney? and that other jerkoff that raised helmouth 5k with queen high and hit a queen on the turn? shit like that happened thousands of times every day of the wsop, mostly to pros who get their money in with the best hand and get screwed on the river. you rarely see a pro coming from behind to win a hand for all their chips, because they know to avoid situations like that
|
|
#9
11-30-04, 03:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
What?!?!?!
your crazy dont you remember chris furgeson hitting runner king that saved him against pocket aces?!?! the pros had just as many lucky breaks as the amatures did now by no way am I saying the amatures are as good as the pro's but come on. And the amatures where trying to bluff the pot when they raised with nothing they just wernt good at it like betting 1/10 of the pot he even said at the end of hand he was trying to and Sammy told him something like his tells gave him away which he couldnt do nothing about it was like his 1st live tornament. The amatures that made it in obviously know how to play or wouldnt of won there invitation and dont tell me it was luck because you cant be all luck to win a satalite. Sure you won some races but no one wins with all luck even the pros agree with that. Only thing the pro's had against them is they had alot more peopler in pots where they where because everyone wants to beat a pro. And as for screwing over man its poker your gonna have bad beats it happens you learn to live with it and go onto the next hand all pros have learned that except for Phil Hellmuth of course because as phil says if there wernt luck involved he would win every one 
|
|
#10
11-30-04, 04:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
fishes
dude i hate fishes too, but logically fishes donate the most money. Just make them pay them to see every card and dont try to trap them and they should be ripe for the taking.
|
|
#11
11-30-04, 04:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yeah I really don't like playing with a table full of fish. But I LOVE playing with 2 or 3 uber fish.
They create action and often distract the few stronger players on the table. Also they tend to lose their money, which isn't so bad  .Cheers, Gutzz |
|
#12
11-30-04, 05:14 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
What does everyone think is the best % of players on flop. Logically you want the highest, but maybe just slightly above 50%? I have played alot at Pacific, and you can find tables that have just about any % you want. So in stricly limit games, what would be optimal for a tight/aggressive player??
|
|
#13
11-30-04, 01:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would like a mix, as well. I do understand, though, that the odds are you will eventually take money from the fish because they play badly. You just can't get caught up in their games and start playing junk.
|
|
#14
11-30-04, 01:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I agree that a mix of players is ideal. If you have 7-9 fish at the table seeing the flop when you have AK (for example), even if you hit an A or a K there are so many hands out there that two pair/set is LIKELY. So it is hard to bet out, get 4-5 calls and then bet out again on the turn, and have any confidence that you are ahead in the hand. Against mostly solid players you are essentially carving up the fishes chips between you.
As they said in Rounders.... "we weren't really playing together, but we weren't playing against eachother either." or something like that. The predictability of the solid players leaves the best hand vs the fish (or two) holding second best hands most of the time. This is a good situation IMO. Too many fish tend to leave even the best hands in a vulnerable situation unless you improve. |
|
#15
11-30-04, 01:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
That's true. It is really cool, though, to get a MONSTER hand at a table full of fish. They pay off nicely.
|
|
#16
11-30-04, 01:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yep, it seems that they are so used to playing bad hands that whenn you raise pre-flop and AAK comes on the flop the just can't comprehend that someone might have AK. These are some of the biggest pots I have seen.
 3-4 calling down with j6, q8 hoping to catch runner runner for the straight, or 45 suited drawing dead to a low flush. Funny stuff. 
|
|
#17
12-01-04, 12:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I like flop percentage between 37-50, anything more and it... can be a little crazy. But if you're tight, then you'll push the average down a little.
I don't mind tables with flop percentage 30-37, but anything below that is just torture for me. Cheers, Gutzz |
|
#19
12-01-04, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
80%? WOW! That would be a maniacs table, wouldn't it?? Every table has a couple people who play EVERY hand. I can imagine a larger portion of the table doing it.
|
|
#20
12-01-04, 01:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
this question really made me think of the last time i was at foxwoods.
at the two different tables that i sat at, there were just completely different styles. at the first, it was the most loose passive table i have ever been at. i was the only person who would consistently raise preflop, and there were usually 8 people in every pot preflop. the next table i was at had one absolute maniac, so most pots were capped preflop. this still left 5 people in, on average, but it was much more difficult to play against this player. clearly these two tables were profitable, but i had to play them in very different ways. i think that it is almost more important to match up the style of your play with the others at the table, than it is to constantly be trolling for fish. i deally i want a mix of abilities at the table, but i would rather avoid the maniacs and play with the loose passives all day long. |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
