Hi. I have a question for a dilemma i don't seem to figure out.
"msusyr" from pocarr which is excellent mtt player says in training videos that it's ok to seek for bigger margins(wait for better hands) versus a field full of fish.

On the other hand...in a poker book(i think it was Kill phill, or kill everyone) one of the authors makes a note that the hands that are considered good to open/shove are good regardless of the player, because if the players calls wrong and derives from the equilibrium we make even more money.

In my head these concepts are opposite.

Also, in theory i think the concept from the book wins, but in practice where i play(lot of fish) I always seem to get better results with the "msusyr" approach.

Can you give me some insight about my confusion? Sorry if this is a noob question.

There not that exactly opposite.

msusyr is just pointing out that if you have a large edge over the field then you should be taking opportunities that yield a greater +EV result in your favor rather than marginal +EV situations (e.g. a flip), because against fish you are likely to get more opportunities to make better +EV decisions.

Giving a very basic situation for the point of this exercise. Say you were playing heads up 10,000BB deep in a jam or fold game, against someone who is going to call any two cards all the time. You would fold every hand until you got Aces. Now against a good player you can't really wait for aces, because he isn't going to call you if you only jam once every 200 hands. You would have to jam anything that is +EV. I know this isn't a great example, but hopefully you get the point.

In regards to the other situation (Kill Phil or whatever) he I basically saying if you open jam in a spot that is unexploitable then you are making a +EV decision and can't be worse off than just folding.

thanks man...now it makes sense...