I play £1/£2 in London and often see loads of regs at the table when a deep-stacked drunk fish or a whale is at the table. Is it ever really +ev to be at a table with 6 or 7 other solid regs in an attempt to get the fish's money or should I look elsewhere?

IMO yes. As long as you are one of the 6-7 solid players.

There are certain mega-whales that lose multiple buyins so often that the net profit for the rest of the table will almost always be positive. However, where that money ends up (in the long run) will depend on which regs are better. Speaking for low-mid stakes games it is extremely unlikely that they are all +EV vs the lineup. I'm sure nosebleed stakes with 8 pros and a billionaire whale might be different.

When in a 'whale' game position is key. I actually like to be on the whale's right so I can see what everyone else is doing before I act and isolate accordingly. If you are playing with regs there is generally an understanding to stay out of each other's way ... but certainly with no guarantees.

I was on a whales direct left last night and did ok, but it's nice to have a little extra dead money in the middle from all the flat calls to entice the whale to stay in the pot if he does have a marginal holding. GL

Unless something is really different between the UK and US, there are never 6 solid players at a low stakes table.

You're not going to do very well in a game where you play with 6 people you can't beat, no matter how bad the worst player is. You just end up channeling money upward to the best player at the table.

I would definitely look for a different table, unless the whale is dumping >~$500 per hour. Or if you are a step above the rest of the solid regs. Otherwise you are playing 6-7way bingo on who has the best hand.

Dumping $500 (US) an hour is ridiculous. That's -100 bb/hr at a 2/5 game and -250 bb/hr in a 1/2 game. "One time I saw him blow through two buyins in an hour and the next week he came in and did it again" is really different from "his long term winrate is -200 bb/hr." Do statistics on what it means to be a -100 bb/hr loser. It means that it's nearly impossible to have a single winning session because even running good can't save you from the tsunami of negative expectation. It's ridiculous.

Even if you shoved blind every hand, it'd be hard pressed to make -200 bb/hr. You'd actually have to look at your hand and throw away all the best ones.

It's a ridiculous myth that one whale feeds the whole table. Think of it this way, let's say you have an idiot losing $100/hr or something plausible like that - the average winrate of everyone else is still negative because in most places $100/hr is less than the rake. You need 2+ of these people at a table of everyone else is equally skilled.

And that's the key. A table with one whale will definitely feed one standout player. The whale donates to everyone, and then everyone else is just a conduit of money to the best player.

Whoosh.

Take it easy buddy. We're in agreement. My whole point was that a whale does not feed a whole table, hence the exaggeration of "-$500/hr".

I noticed that a lot of people don't adjust well to the spewing whales and they become there sole focus. A little patience and then not only can you trap the whale but that guy who is "trapping" with a weaker hand. Mr. Single focus is leaving wondering what happened and whale is reaching into his never ending pocket of cash.

If you don't think you are in the top half the table for skill move.

Top half seems a bit low of a threshold. Poker player skill doesn't follow a normal distribution, so being in the top half is probably slightly +EV, but not much.

If I'm not in the top third of the table in skill, I look to move. There is almost always a weaker game available.

Oh I agree but op is only thinking he is ahead of one guy. As your skill improves then you can shave that more and more.

no bc 99% of regs suck really bad. Don't be afraid of regs. theyre the easiest fish since you should have their games down pat by now.