I do not remember the source, but I came across a thought provoking example when reading:

You are playing a full ring cash game (9 handed). The blinds are $5/$10. Everyone has 1,000 behind. Utg raises $30, Utg+1 raises to $100, MP1 raises to $300, and you are immediately next to act decide to go all in with AA. How many callers do you want?

Answers vary from: 1 caller, a few callers, to every one else calls.

The correct answer is revealed as everyone else calls, which is then followed by an explanation. When AA is heads up against the worst hand 72o, we are a large favorite ~88%, so in the long run we expect to win $1760 ($2000 x .88). When AA is up against a random assortment of 8 other hands, our chances of winning drop to ~23% give or take a few % depending on the hands. In this case we expect to win $2070 ($9000 x .23). We should prefer that everyone calls, because although we win far less often, we can expect to win more in the long run when we do win.

As a player that has meddled around in both LAG play and Nitty play, this example really got me thinking since I have recently been engaging in the later (nitty play).

Good winning players (possibly with the exception of Nits) are more willing to push small edges in expected value, and willing to introduce more variance into there game even if the are just a slight favorite. (Hence thin value). Or perhaps a minor underdog statistically, though they have some fold equity and a good read. Both of these aspects allow them to play more aggressive, high pressure, and generally better poker.

Another example I encountered was an interview in which Gus Hansen discussed to the role that variance/luck plays in his game. In one session he estimated around 80-90%, in a month 12-15%, in a year 3-5%.

Gus being a loose aggressive player, the main point is similar to that of the first example. Ultimately, the ability to court and except variance as part of the game, and to aggressively push those small edges when you are ahead is worth cultivating. The ability to consistently lose close spots for large sums, but to keep pushing aggressively with even the slightest positive EV, is a good trait to have.

Summing it up, a winner mentality would be to aggressively pursue the goal of winning the most, whether that be small edges, or well thought out and likely effective moves, while at the same time having no fear of loosing.

All of this is to be assumed within reason, and with a grain of salt. Although, coming from someone has been on the nittier conservative side lately it was something interesting to think about and share.

Yes it would be wanting the entire table to call. However, you also want to seek bigger edges vs bigger fish as well. For example, shoving pocket 6s heads up is likely going to be +EV, but it's only like 55% vs any 2 overcards. I might fold there, knowing that the fish is going to give me better spots.

Also, Gus is an idiot in general. He'll complain about how bad he's running when switched to a new table, even though he just eliminated someone at the last table on a 3 outer suckout river.

I am a casual player with no real bankroll I just play whenever I can. I think the OP reveals a "problem" in my thinking. I typically play nitty just hoping to be up in each session.

In the AA example my firm answer is 2 callers or 1 caller and certainly not more than 2 callers. I prefer my % to win a given hand be greater than 50% at all times.

I agree that going to the next level requires being comfortable pushing small edges. The result is more aggressive poker (which is better) and in turn people giving more action.

Right now I am leaving money on the table by trying to play a low variance game.

LOL. Please find another authority to listen to

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...b-poker-losses

Thanks for sharing this OP.

I think it also has something to do with your background as a player (I do realize that your example specifically talks about a cash game). Tourney players often tend to have traces of nittiness that can be noticed in their approach when they play cash games.

I used to be a SNG-only player a long while ago and my answer back then would have invariably been one or two callers, no more. And it would actually be suboptimal to have multiple callers in that spot had it been a tournament. It's just that your brain tends to become wired to think in a certain way.

As a purely cash player now, I completely agree with this outlook.

I would argue that if thats the only fish on the table someone would usually stack him before you get a hand that would give you a very large edge, so you should try to play as many hands vs the fish as you can (within reason).

But if you win playing a lower variance style it is still winning.
Even if you could win more pushing for every edge you can find gets you somehow more money how much more is it when you put nto a balance the fact that you are by personality a nitty person... And the pressure of fighting for every spot will not go in your favor.

1 caller is fine for me.because I don't aspire to be great just win some.and don't have the mental streght to do it
But i belive that people who do didnt choose that style but instead their personality is what pushed them into that style. Dono exactly

It isnt about aspiring to be great, its about winning more money.
Thats the reason we play the game right?

Only if you can isolate him though. And if you're playing too many hands, the good players are going to notice, and be able to exploit you.

Thats where the "within reason" comes in.