5 ms·

>I really don't understand this sentiment, as if a professional gambler would not gladly gamble with novices... There are a few cases I can think of immediatel

>I really don't understand this sentiment, as if a professional gambler would not gladly gamble with novices... There are a few cases I can think of immediately where this applies - gambling with novices in Blackjack, for example, is not ideal. They'll screw up the flow of cards and can cause your math to go haywire. The same happens with Hold-em or Omaha Poker - you want people to have enough skill to play the game properly, but if you're looking to fleece them not enough skill to play the game well.

danenania 6y ago
That's not the case in poker. If someone thinks a novice player is messing them up somehow with poor play, it means they're not a good player either. A good poker player wants their opponents to play as poorly as possible.
- rud7udehev 6y ago
  This is the sort of statement that sounds good to idiots and people who've never played poker. Anyone who's made money at casino poker is aware of how much of a hassle retards spasming at the card table can make things even if they're going to lose in the end.
  - danenania 6y ago
    I played professionally for years. I wanted my opponents to play as badly as possible.
  - pcthrowaway 6y ago
    It changes the strategy, and it might take you a while to hit, but it greatly improves your potential to win. I once played 1/2 NL uncapped at a casino, a guy sat down and put $1000 on the table. Every other hand he would raise $25-50 preflop, and call re-raises. Got all in pre-flop and pre-turn a bunch of times, every time he bust he put another $1000 on the table. This is exactly the best player to play with. Yes, you have to sit and wait for good cards before getting involved, but if you get something good, you have very good odds of stacking them.
  - waprin 6y ago
    No, totally wrong, it’s the exact opposite. Novices and only novices think “you can’t beat bad players cause they’re unpredictable!” Even your more moderate point you’d rather not have them in the game is totally wrong. In reality, every professional player loves players who do terrible, random things. Variance might go up, but variance is going to be annoying either way. Other players doing dumb things is where your EV comes from. I’ve only ever heard complaints about crazy players being a hassle from inexperienced amateurs who dabble. Pros want “live ones” in their games.
    - smogcutter 6y ago
      Like in chess for example - a kind of player who has more trouble with extreme novices than people their own level is someone who knows how the game “should” be played, but doesn’t actually have the skill to go off-book themselves or punish mistakes when an opponent deviates. An actually strong player won’t have that problem.
      - sunnyps 6y ago
        Except that chess is a perfect information game, but poker is not. Which means it's possible to tell if your opponent made a mistake in chess, but it might not be in poker. Disclaimer: chess novice, don't know anything about poker.
        pcthrowaway 6y ago
        Playing poker against very novice players makes it a more volatile game. You might lose big and you might win big, but that's actually good for your EV; the beginner has no concept of bet sizing and that's where you shine. An expert playing against many intermediate player may end up winning on average 5 big blinds / hr over the course of a month. They'll certainly have losing sessions as well. An expert playing against beginners might 'lose' 50% of the hands they get involved in still, and make a ton more money on the ones they win. It's the difference between an average of 5 big blinds / hr, and 50 big blinds / hr. I'm not an expert by the way, I just consider myself an 'advanced beginner', who can count on making $2-4 / hr playing 1/2 no limit at the casino (based on having played maybe 200 hrs of poker in the casino). Not worth it as a way to make money, and I stopped caring enough about poker to invest the time to become better. But you can see the entire dynamic at a table change when a loose, novice player sits down. Players no longer play against each other as much because they can count on the loose player to raise the stakes, and they're much more likely to capitalize on that.
- ameister14 6y ago
  I never liked having true novices, especially in tournaments or when I was running multiple tables at once - it was easier to make notes of play style and predict when people knew how to play at a basic level. Sure, I'm more likely to beat the person that is going all in with a 2 5 off suit but bad beats are incredibly annoying. Over time, in a sit and go situation I'd beat that player, but online and in tournament play I found that was a hazard. I'll take a consistent bad player over a complete novice any day.
  - danenania 6y ago
    Sure, playing correctly against a maniac, novice, or otherwise unpredictable player can be more difficult and have higher variance, but it's also as lucrative as it gets if you know what you're doing. All the strong players I've known would be elated to play against people like that.
    - ryandrake 6y ago
      When someone is playing randomly (as some very newbie players might), it's a little difficult to directly exploit, but more of a patience game. It's only a matter of time until you stack them. When someone just consistently plays bad, that's the ideal situation.
    - ameister14 6y ago
      >Sure, playing correctly against a maniac, novice, or otherwise unpredictable player can be more difficult and have higher variance, it's also as lucrative as it gets if you know what you're doing. All the strong players I've known would be elated to play against people like that. I don't know about you, but when I was grinding, I didn't really want to increase variance. I wanted a stable mental state with low focus on multiple tables to maximize the rate of return over that period. I found that alterations in that caused me to play more loosely, which ended up leading to avoidable mistakes, magnified because I'm playing multiple tables at once. The same thing was true for a tournament. There's a far more limited return from players like this, in part because you meet them early. It's a fact of the online game that people just go all in a lot especially in the beginning, but it ends up being a gauntlet you just need to get through. I wouldn't call them my ideal opponents; it's not what I prefer, it just exists. Maybe I'm not what you would consider a strong player but I did win consistently enough to feed myself with it for a couple of years, mostly online before it became illegal. It wasn't really my experience that high risk high reward play was the way to go. Most of the people I played with worked to limit variance's effect on their game, not increase it. Again though, that's just me - not the strongest player ever, you clearly have a different opinion about it. All good.
Tenoke 6y ago
I've bought counted cards at casinos and played poker semi-professionally and this is just wrong. In Blackjack the other players are not really relevant, the count stays the same and on average you will be about equally profitable with or without them. They might increase the variance a little but they reduce the attention the dealer pays on you and my team never minded others on the table. In Hold'em and Omaha you WANT weaker players, they are in short supply, and you will expect to have an edge against someone that barely knows the rules, too.
mrfox321 6y ago
Your blackjack outcome is independent of other player's decisions. This is a statistical fallacy.
- ameister14 6y ago
  >Your blackjack outcome is independent of other player's decisions. >This is a statistical fallacy. Yes, "Your blackjack outcome is independent of other player's decision" IS a statistical fallacy. You're correct. It's pretty easy to prove this. Is the number of cards in play finite? Yes. Can other people at the table get more cards than they begin with? Yes. If someone can impact the number of cards left in the deck, wouldn't they have the potential to change your outcome?

danenania 6y ago

That's not the case in poker. If someone thinks a novice player is messing them up somehow with poor play, it means they're not a good player either. A good poker player wants their opponents to play as poorly as possible.

rud7udehev 6y ago
This is the sort of statement that sounds good to idiots and people who've never played poker. Anyone who's made money at casino poker is aware of how much of a hassle retards spasming at the card table can make things even if they're going to lose in the end.
- danenania 6y ago
  I played professionally for years. I wanted my opponents to play as badly as possible.
- pcthrowaway 6y ago
  It changes the strategy, and it might take you a while to hit, but it greatly improves your potential to win. I once played 1/2 NL uncapped at a casino, a guy sat down and put $1000 on the table. Every other hand he would raise $25-50 preflop, and call re-raises. Got all in pre-flop and pre-turn a bunch of times, every time he bust he put another $1000 on the table. This is exactly the best player to play with. Yes, you have to sit and wait for good cards before getting involved, but if you get something good, you have very good odds of stacking them.
- waprin 6y ago
  No, totally wrong, it’s the exact opposite. Novices and only novices think “you can’t beat bad players cause they’re unpredictable!” Even your more moderate point you’d rather not have them in the game is totally wrong. In reality, every professional player loves players who do terrible, random things. Variance might go up, but variance is going to be annoying either way. Other players doing dumb things is where your EV comes from. I’ve only ever heard complaints about crazy players being a hassle from inexperienced amateurs who dabble. Pros want “live ones” in their games.
  - smogcutter 6y ago
    Like in chess for example - a kind of player who has more trouble with extreme novices than people their own level is someone who knows how the game “should” be played, but doesn’t actually have the skill to go off-book themselves or punish mistakes when an opponent deviates. An actually strong player won’t have that problem.
    - sunnyps 6y ago
      Except that chess is a perfect information game, but poker is not. Which means it's possible to tell if your opponent made a mistake in chess, but it might not be in poker. Disclaimer: chess novice, don't know anything about poker.
      - pcthrowaway 6y ago
        Playing poker against very novice players makes it a more volatile game. You might lose big and you might win big, but that's actually good for your EV; the beginner has no concept of bet sizing and that's where you shine. An expert playing against many intermediate player may end up winning on average 5 big blinds / hr over the course of a month. They'll certainly have losing sessions as well. An expert playing against beginners might 'lose' 50% of the hands they get involved in still, and make a ton more money on the ones they win. It's the difference between an average of 5 big blinds / hr, and 50 big blinds / hr. I'm not an expert by the way, I just consider myself an 'advanced beginner', who can count on making $2-4 / hr playing 1/2 no limit at the casino (based on having played maybe 200 hrs of poker in the casino). Not worth it as a way to make money, and I stopped caring enough about poker to invest the time to become better. But you can see the entire dynamic at a table change when a loose, novice player sits down. Players no longer play against each other as much because they can count on the loose player to raise the stakes, and they're much more likely to capitalize on that.
ameister14 6y ago
I never liked having true novices, especially in tournaments or when I was running multiple tables at once - it was easier to make notes of play style and predict when people knew how to play at a basic level. Sure, I'm more likely to beat the person that is going all in with a 2 5 off suit but bad beats are incredibly annoying. Over time, in a sit and go situation I'd beat that player, but online and in tournament play I found that was a hazard. I'll take a consistent bad player over a complete novice any day.
- danenania 6y ago
  Sure, playing correctly against a maniac, novice, or otherwise unpredictable player can be more difficult and have higher variance, but it's also as lucrative as it gets if you know what you're doing. All the strong players I've known would be elated to play against people like that.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    When someone is playing randomly (as some very newbie players might), it's a little difficult to directly exploit, but more of a patience game. It's only a matter of time until you stack them. When someone just consistently plays bad, that's the ideal situation.
  - ameister14 6y ago
    >Sure, playing correctly against a maniac, novice, or otherwise unpredictable player can be more difficult and have higher variance, it's also as lucrative as it gets if you know what you're doing. All the strong players I've known would be elated to play against people like that. I don't know about you, but when I was grinding, I didn't really want to increase variance. I wanted a stable mental state with low focus on multiple tables to maximize the rate of return over that period. I found that alterations in that caused me to play more loosely, which ended up leading to avoidable mistakes, magnified because I'm playing multiple tables at once. The same thing was true for a tournament. There's a far more limited return from players like this, in part because you meet them early. It's a fact of the online game that people just go all in a lot especially in the beginning, but it ends up being a gauntlet you just need to get through. I wouldn't call them my ideal opponents; it's not what I prefer, it just exists. Maybe I'm not what you would consider a strong player but I did win consistently enough to feed myself with it for a couple of years, mostly online before it became illegal. It wasn't really my experience that high risk high reward play was the way to go. Most of the people I played with worked to limit variance's effect on their game, not increase it. Again though, that's just me - not the strongest player ever, you clearly have a different opinion about it. All good.

Tenoke 6y ago

I've bought counted cards at casinos and played poker semi-professionally and this is just wrong. In Blackjack the other players are not really relevant, the count stays the same and on average you will be about equally profitable with or without them. They might increase the variance a little but they reduce the attention the dealer pays on you and my team never minded others on the table. In Hold'em and Omaha you WANT weaker players, they are in short supply, and you will expect to have an edge against someone that barely knows the rules, too.

mrfox321 6y ago

Your blackjack outcome is independent of other player's decisions. This is a statistical fallacy.

ameister14 6y ago
>Your blackjack outcome is independent of other player's decisions. >This is a statistical fallacy. Yes, "Your blackjack outcome is independent of other player's decision" IS a statistical fallacy. You're correct. It's pretty easy to prove this. Is the number of cards in play finite? Yes. Can other people at the table get more cards than they begin with? Yes. If someone can impact the number of cards left in the deck, wouldn't they have the potential to change your outcome?