QFMFT. Thank you for the reminder.

There's a really interesting bit of short term thinking buried in this (specifically, rejection of the rule that poker hands are independent statistical events).

When you are "running bad", it doesn't change one bit the probability that you will win or lose the next hand.

So if some fish "inherently plays you differently" because of your bad table image by, for instance, calling you down or raise you because "you never have it", that only hurts you if you continue to run bad. But there's no justification for that assumption. If you are dealt KK the hand has the exact same probability of winning whether you have been running bad or good. So if a fish calls or raises you because you are running bad and have a shot table image, that fish is transferring Sklansky dollars to you if you have KK.

No one ever claimed bad players play better against people when they are stuck. What is true in almost all cases is that the bad player is way more likely to tilt than the solid player, and is way more likely to deviate from his 35/15 "strategy" to a 55/20 one while on tilt. And tilt usually happens for bad players when they're buried.

So yeah, when people around you are spewing way less, you're going to win less.

In other words, you are suggesting you should leave a game where you are a substantial statistical favorite to win, simply because you are losing money in it in the short term, whereas you should stay in a game where you are less of a statistical favorite, simply because you are not losing money in it in the short term?

DD, you are a far better player than I am, so I say this with all respect, but that makes zero sense.

The only part of this that makes sense is that the fish may make adjustments that make them play better. But that should happen so long as the fish is winning, even if you are winning too.

Jesus, it' not that hard. What if we have T-9 instead of Kk and we 3 barely off the straight draw. Our probability of winning this hand unimproved is not always the same

Sometimes players make really bad folds, this is good for us. When they stop making really bad folds it's usually bad for us.

If showing down a loser everybsnd makes them less inclined to make bad folds, this is bad for us

I honestly don't get how you can't understand this. Have you really never seen people play significantly worse when stuck?

theres are plenty of times where I open Utg and player folds KJ then 2 hours later same player cold calls 34s. Once the latter starts happening you don't quit

This is not true for two reasons. 1) KK does not have the same probability of winning in both situations because the hand doesn't always go to showdown. As Jon said KK is a bad example since we almost always want them to call and they tend to do that whether winning or losing (although when they are playing well they may make a decent fold where they would usually make a hopeless calldown) but if our hand is not a premium a lot of our money comes from them making folding mistakes.
2) the probability of a hand winning is not the same as the EV of the hand, which takes betting into account. A loose passive fish basically misses value from their good hands and put in too much money with their bad hands. If they play a bit differently and shore up both those mistakes even slightly our EV with any hand is going to go down.

No, what I am saying is how are you determining you are a "substantial statistical favorite"? It sounds like you are just generalizing and saying "well I beat 20/40 for $45 an hour so even if the lineup is bad or I am down 80 bets my hourly is the same" and that is simply untrue. There is no static hourly. Nor is it even worth worrying about what it is. The point is that evaluating each game on its own merits and quitting when people are playing their best and playing longer when they are playing their worst will have a massive effect on our "hourly".

This is not quite as relevant at smaller stakes because the average level of play is so low that often you can never be an underdog in the game no matter what. But at high stakes it makes a world of difference! There are some 400/800 games where my "hourly" might be 1000+ an hour and others where it is significantly below zero. I don't have a big enough bankroll or emotional roll to just shrug and power through the latter games but I'll happily take a shot in the former. And provided my analysis is correct and variance cooperates, ill do awesome.

I would rather have 34s

i don't buy it. maybe twice ever, three times max

I understand that, but I think we are talking past each other.

Here's the hypothetical.

Let's say you are at a table with 3 fish and 5 more and less solid players (not necessarily world champs, but players you aren't expecting to make a ton of money off of).

Let's further say that all 3 fish are making money. They are all playing "at their best". The 4th player making money at the table is you. The other 5 solid players are all either card dead or getting coolered and are way down.

Now, if what you are saying is right, you should LEAVE this table, correct? Because all 3 of your fish are playing at their absolute best and therefore cutting your long-term EV.

And yet I have never seen anyone, in any of these discussions, advocate doing that. Which tells me that there's a fair amount of "I'm running bad" short term gambler's fallacy thinking involved in this in the real world, even if you are theoretically correct.

No, the game you described will be amazing. If we are stuck 4 racks, some other guy got buried and quit and everyone left in the game is even or up then he game will probably be awful and we can quit.

If you are regularly playing with 5 people that get stuck 5 racks and keep playing their absolute best, then I'd move

In terms of big bets lost I once lost 500 in a 2 4 limit game at Hard Rock in Ft Lauderdale. In those days 2005 - 2007 I would sometimes play 40 hr sessions but this all happened in bout 4 hours Literally flopped 7 sets and never dragged a pot. All but a couple were against the same guy who would cap pots with low end of gutshots, backdoor flush draws, I don't think he ever had a made hand til river and would get there every time. There would be 4 or 5 players to every river and capped every street. Also lost AA and KK capped 3 way pots on river draw outs. There was a nice ending in that I made a royal flush bout 6 am. In diamonds for a 500 bonus and massive pot. Had to wait bout 45 min. To get paid as security started collecting the rake but I was fine with waiting.
Today I quit 2-4 or 3-6 anytime im stuck 180 or more or when Im up 300 and lose a pot. 4-8 I hardly ever get to play in Michigan but I play 5 10 home game which is round by round omaha hi lo n limit holdem and I wouldn't quit that game for any reason it so good. Only runs twice a month or I'd be rich.

Yeah I'm def not in favour of combining all the stakes into one forum