Live Poker Poker Forums

I am always trying to better understand the mindset of weaker players, but this one has me a bit stumped. Is it as simple as just being out of their ultra-comfort zone?

This one had be stumped for years. I really think it all comes down to the comfort zone stuff. For starters almost all of these guys completely suck at poker, the people who are more skilled tend to not be as concerned about playing short. Many of these guys have played almost the entirety of their hands at a full table and that's all they really know. One thing I noticed when playing homegames a lot was that this situation pretty much never happened so I'm guessing it's just a casino specific phenomenon.

The other thing is, a lot of these players really are so bad that unless everything with table conditions is favorable to them (fish at table, full table, etc) they probably are losing players.

You can't win the BBJ if there are too few players at the table!

That's actually not the rule here, if a buck is dropped you can win it (as long as there's 10 bucks in the pot).

Edit:
Same rule actually applies to the royals. We have a royal payout for each suit (from the BBJ money), only has to be 10 bucks in the pot, no min player number.

This one had be stumped for years. I really think it all comes down to the comfort zone stuff. For starters almost all of these guys completely suck at poker, the people who are more skilled tend to not be as concerned about playing short. Many of these guys have played almost the entirety of their hands at a full table and that's all they really know. One thing I noticed when playing homegames a lot was that this situation pretty much never happened so I'm guessing it's just a casino specific phenomenon.

The other thing is, a lot of these players really are so bad that unless everything with table conditions is favorable to them (fish at table, full table, etc) they probably are losing players.

I don't think that they actually know this. Dunning-Krueger and all that.

I always imagined it had something to do with there being fewer big pots shorthanded. Because you know, the only way to make money at poker is to play a 200bb+ pot.

I always imagined it had something to do with there being fewer big pots shorthanded. Because you know, the only way to make money at poker is to play a 200bb+ pot.

I think this nails it. The typical live player wants to see 7 or 8 way pots and they dream about flopping the nuts and winning a huge pot. Just the other day I heard two geniuses explaining why 32s was a much better hand that AJo, which basically amounted to the idea that making a 3 high flush is the nuts while a pair of aces with a jack kicker is always outkicked by a king or queen.

I assume most of the regs at my games are marginal losing players (or worse) who must be getting some money from elsewhere (government assistance, insurance settlement, inheritance, etc.) that supports their degeneracy. A decent number of regs also have income from owning a small business or some other job that allows them a fair amount of time off, and they know just enough to avoid losing so fast that they go broke. There's a handful of big winners and a somewhat larger pool of very small winners who would be significant losers if there wasn't a constant supply of absolutely clueless fish.

When you are having a high rake and tipping the dealer, you have to be a lot better than the opponents to win if it's short handed. It is possible to have a poker game where everyone in the game is -EV. Especially low stakes/high rake with dealer tips and small pots, even if you are the best player, you can still be -EV. At a full table with the blinds coming around less often, the players who play too many hands pay the rake, and you can play tight, which you kind of have to to beat a high rake. Also, a lot of live players like to play passive and "see flops", I just got back from Vegas, and something I noticed a lot was people doing stuff like limping AK, AQ, 99, and they know that short handed their passive style will lose faster. Just my opinion.

I like how you write, more threads please.

(4) As a last resort, I complain about the smell / breath / demeanor / conversational ineptitude of one of the people next to me.

Do you seriously do this? How does the person respond?

Do you seriously do this? How does the person respond?

Only had to twice as far as I can remember and it was more a matter of whispering the reason to my new neighbor as it was announcing it to the whole table. In both cases, the person was ridiculously drunk and being somewhat obnoxious to everyone at the table. Of course, he was also on my left, and I preferred having him on my right!

Really useful, thanks SJ. It's cleared up something I've always wondered, ie is it better to have position on the deep stacks or the fish. Now if there's a choice I'll always take position on the fish but buy in for less if the guy to my left is the only one on the table with a deep stack.

when's part 3 coming? I still really excited to see where you're going with this.