The only thing I disagree with is when you said that you should quit when running bad because they are going to start calling you down wider.

Some of us don't play showdown poker and when we are running bad, that's pretty much it.

Sit there and wait for good hands? Why not just go home or table change back to a neutral image.

And I'm the troll.

If you only have one way to play and you say "I DON'T PLAY SHOWDOWN POKER" then you are missing out on a lot of value. People calling you down lighter at LLSNL is almost always going to be a good thing.

It does involve playing a little tighter. But not a lot tighter since you can widen vbetting ranges. If that's too boring for you, fine, do something else. But people always seem to want ot maximize win-rate. And adjusting to when the players in the game are makign entirely ******ed adjustments to you is a nice way to do so.

i explained why.
its less profitable.

i dont recall saying that its cuz they start calling you down wider?? pls quotes.

if you have nothing to do but play poker, and whatever else you want to do with your time, like me,
you can play later. youre free to do that. your schedule can revolve around when playing is the most profitable.
no one is holding a gun to your head to play right now.
its simple game selection/rejection, which is a fundamental. some say that its the single most important determining factor regarding your results. that it effects your results more than how you play your cards.

another reason: you may start tilting, or be on tilt, and not know it.> that's unprofitable.

lets say, that your winrate over a huge sample is Y,
but now, in this session, it's .2 Y because your image sucks;
you are gonna keep playing??
when tomorrow it will back to Y,
and you can just quit now, and do something that you enjoy more than poker with your time, or something that will boost your EV for the next session, like taking care of yourself;
and you dont give a damn about proving that you can beat them today, and that the cards will eventually break even today??. it's not a pissing contest about who can run better today for a non drooler, but a pissing contest about who can learn to play the game through hard work, and who can execute their acquired skills with thier cards, and with thier management decisions.
you know you own them over the longrun, so let them win this one this time.
its no biggie. good quitting isnt an admission of defeat.
just the opposite, imo.
its something that droolers never do. they go off for 5-6 BI all the time when they have a sucky image on top of not knowing how to play.
recipocality would suggest that its a bad idea to imitate this tendancy??
stubborness is a hugely negative quality for a poker player to possess.
not quitting out of stubborness i would say is a fairly bad leak, imo, when quitting is the obviously most profitable play. (because youre only gonna play X amount of hours, anyways)

btw jack, i never said dont play showdown poker with a sucky image. you are putting words in my mouth.
i could take your end of the argument, and prolly beat you in a debate against my end of the argument, but i cant figure out what your end of the argument is. so far its just so much grasping at straws.

I think what you're missing, stampler, is that for many of us, we're not trying to minimize our time at the poker table. For a rec player, adjusting > leaving, as long as we are still +EV and still enjoying playing.

It's an hour and 15-30 minutes drive to the casino for me. My winrate is considerably less than my hourly at my job. Yes, I make money playing poker, but if I didn't enjoy it, the $$s definitely wouldn't be worth it.

And SeaUlater and Jack, can we stop with the pissing contest? Neither of you is a troll, both of you can be jerks when you think someone else started it. Seriously, it's like listening to kids in the back of the car. Don't make me pull this internet over...

What about my image "sucking" is making it unprofitable?

And at the risk of sounding like the kid saying "but I didn't start it" I don't think I've ever done anything to him other than 1 obnoxious comment (which I apologized for) and this latest thing was started by me giving my opinion in response to something that someone else said.

So. I'm not really sure what I ever did to him other than not agreeing with the mainstream opinion in this thread.

I'll ask you a question, which type of player do you think make more money, nit, TAG, or LAG?

Let's compare them strictly as what each one represents for this discussion.

Perhaps it's my own fault for giving you the benefit of doubt that you are well verse in the game of poker and the stuffs you have been saying is not aligned with what you actually know...

I played a short session w/ Tommy A the other day, and i picked up a tell on him.

Spoiler:

in between hands.

The type of player that makes the most money is the one that can adjust the way he plays based on how his opponents are playing against him. IF they are never folding, we should be happy. And just get rid of the bluffing parts of our ranges. This doesn't mean becoming a nit. It just means not betting with the bottom of your range. And betting more often with the middling section of your range.

And I know Stampler said "the thing that reduces our winrate isn't them calling us down wider when we have a bad image". So I'm just curious what other adjustments to our play you think they are making that negatively affects our winrate?

all this talk about running bad is kind of silly. if you can't make adjustments when you're running bad or have a bad image or you know you're gonna tilt then yeah, leave early to save yourself some money. but that's a leak you should work on plugging.

the game doesn't get tougher just because you have a bad image though. your inability to adjust is what may make the game less profitable.

they are making fewer mistakes against you than usual when you havent shown them a winning hand, or dragged a pot in 4 hours.
this is an extreme case, and when it happens, which is prolly just every 40 sessions or so that you have a 'driving school movie' type session, you should definately notice that its a less profitable a spot for you than normal, and how, and why.
but even when youre just card dead, and not active, and not winning, but not getting killed, either, they start playing better against you (or, not worse, whatever the semantics), which is less profitable for you.
you obv have an edge vs. a poor player, but we tend to over estimate that edge mathematically.
it can easily be ecslipsed by tilt, image, ect... dont be self decieved.
casinos build empires on tiny edges, so dont think you have some massive edge vs. droolers when youre prolly struggling. your edge isnt so great that you can afford to splash around with it, imo, but then again, i play to pay my bills, like garick was sayin'

Anyhow, I guess you won't answer the question because you understood where I was getting at.

Top winners in LLSNL understand that if they're only value betting, they are essentially leaving everything up to luck and variance, and also a lot of money on the table.

So if our image is shot and we have near zero fold equity, the only thing we can do is sit there and essentially play like a nit and hope our cards will hold.

I suppose you might be fine with playing such style of poker, but I definitely don't believe it to be the most profitable, or even profitable at all, because unlike nits who actually have fold equity, we don't.

Okay. I'm still not really sure I agree with you that that ever happens. But if for whatever reason seeing you losing makes them play better against you, we could end up in a situation where we should quit.

Usually when I'm losing I notice people assume I am either 1) tilting or 2) always bluffing. Which puts me in super profitable situations. Even if the fact that I am losing causes them to play back at me more I'm happy. Because bad LLSNL players suck at finding spots to do that.

But I don't think that this is worth talking about anymore. Our positions are inconsistent, but there isn't really a logical resolution. You are saying they play better. I am saying they play different and we can exploit it. (If we don't exploit it they may be playing better against us, but we are poker players we should be adjusting). Which of those two is true probably depends on a lot of factors that neither of us can prove and are likely to be different for each person.

So you wouldn't want to play in a game where every player was calling every bet you made every time?

This is so untrue. Just knowing how to betsize is a huge edge. When they overpay for their draws and undercharge you for yours, you make money. When they call PFRs with dominated hands, you make money. This is not all just luck and variance. It is definitely a skill edge.

This may not be the *most* profitable way to play LLNL, but it is definitely profitable.

And Sea, you're "if you don't agree with me, you must not know much about poker" attitude is really condescending and annoying. Your strat doesn't suck, but your attitude often does.

That's a hell no.

It's the same reason why I don't want to play 3/6 limit.

Except that your bets in NL can be much more profitable. DUCY?

There's history between us. I had always been respectful, or at least tried to be, with most posters in this forum, but he was the one that made the condescending remark toward me first.

I'll squash it.

We're talking about the extreme case that stampler has introduced, in which we are running bad...DUCY?

semi-bluffing isnt profitable anymore, because it relies on the FE, and barreling parts of the equation to be profitable. thats basic, and you already know this.

they will be encouraged to make plays against you that they normally would'nt, that are profitable for them. they are really just tricking themselves into being a better player temporarily, because normally, they wouldnt have the courage to make plays resembling optimal play.
they will take shots at you, and bluff you out when otherwise they never would have when youre running bad. this generally makes their day, even if its a nothing pot, and i hate giving them that satisfaction.
i want to have the psychological ascendancy, and hold it over on them, and if the cards arent cooperating at the moment, i dont need to force it by continuing to train them that i'm an empty chair overly much.

live poker is definately totally different than online in this regard, of image, and running bad/good.
online you may be running bad at one table out of 12, big deal. no one notices or cares, because they are playing 10-20 tables. and it doesnt mean anything, anyways.
live poker is different because your villians are total idiots, too. you have to take this fact into account. its so slow, in comparison, that the mind of a drooler starts drawing game effecting conclusions based on the sample size of like, 3 hands. this is obv exploitable in many ways.
one way, i think, is to quit, and play later after you hit the reset button.

maybe quitting is just an excuse to be lazy, and not putting in enough hours is a leak, but i dont like taking the risk of ending up playing on C, or D game, and i start getting antsey when i realize that i'm on B game, and that the conditions look unfavorable at the moment for getting back on A game performance for me, thats all. i'm a nit, i guess, but i have survived thus far doing this, and have stayed in action. (and playing @24 hours a week). 2 buyins max for me, usually, unless the game is just off the charts, and i'm still playing well. even then, it's one more.
someone who is stuck 3 BIs and claims to still be on A game is either Barry Greenstein, or is delusional, imo.

3/6 limit is also a very profitable game. It just requires a much different strategy (and it probably isn't all that different from the strategy we should be playing when people are calling us down light).

And if you don't want to play in a game where people are calling down every hand, will you at least sell me your seat?

And if we are running bad, then our bets are much rarer. But it only costs us $3 an orbit to play, and if we are using the hypothetical that "every player was calling every bet you made every time," Then we would be nine-tupling (whatever that's actually called) up every time we made the nuts. Definitely enough to beat the rake and the blinds, and much more profitable than 3/6 limit.

I was in a great game last night. Very deep and crazy action. I could not leave. I stayed till almost 6 am.I got sucked out on 3 times but I made two good lay downs and lost the minimum, 520.

First hand. I 4-bet pre-flop all-in (500 effective) with KK. I get called by T6s and he makes a gut shot straight on the river.

Second hand I flop Broadway and turn is an Ace. I fold on the river to a tight player's 3rd barrel.

Third hand, I limp in the BB with K6. Flop is 872

Turn is 3 Check around.

River is 7 I fold to a bet.

Villain1 had the A and Villain2 had 78. So I got sucked out on twice in the same hand.

Even though I lost I think I played pretty well.