To be fair, if you're playing HU live, you think you're playing razz and villain thinks you're playing standard 7-stud, it's going to be pretty difficult to reach a consensus whereby you have won. So 'you can't outplay someone who's playing a different game to you' rings true at least a little.

That's why I just small-ball. Why get pot committed against some ****ing lunatic when there are 97% winning spots to get all your money in. Get used to it or stop playing.

This is an OK starting point, and a SAFE way to play, but you're missing out on a lot of chances to get value - FAT value - from fish who think KQ is the nuts on a KT5r board. Bet three streets with AA or AK in this spot every time. Fold to a raise unless you've seen this villain stack off with less than TPTK at least once.

Heck, you'll run into villains who will call pot bets on the flop AND TURN with an OESD or a fourflush. Bet at them and take their money. In the long run the bets you win when they don't hit will outweigh the times you have to fold to a river raise because they DID hit (and they won't raise you on the river if they don't).

You're attacking a straw man, just inventing a ridiculous position that no one ever defended. My point is, if your edge comes largely from postflop skill, then at some tables, where people are shoving tons of money in the pot preflop, you won't be able to exploit that edge. Obviously if we end up stuck at a table like that, we do what we have to, but depending where our edges lie, some tables are better than others. And I think it may well be true that for some players, they'll have a bigger edge against thinking players.

I hope you aren't seriously so obnoxious as to tell people why they should play poker.

Of course we should know the aspects of our game where we're strong versus weak, but at the tables we still are never (or should never be) deviating from the line we feel is best (generally this pertains just to value, but at a certain point elements such as balance and metagame, which impact long term profitability, can certainly influence this).

A bigger edge against certain thinking players as opposed to certain fish, sure. But against "thinking players" as a whole it's a safe statement that if we're not making more off fish then we're doing something wrong.

Sure, if you are not playing poker for profitability then by all means go ahead That statement is contingent upon the player wanting to make the most money...if this is not the case (and you play poker for the challenge, etc) then it is no longer true.

I'm playing for money, but also for fun. But I make a lot more money playing at higher stakes against decent players than I do playing lower stakes against fish.

And as someone who plays mostly mix games (mostly limit games), everyone in this thread claiming poker is all about making 'big value bets' seem to me to have a narrow view of what poker can be.

I play mixed limit games. Big value bets in limit games are called thin value bets. If the people in my high-stakes game played as poorly as the people in small-stakes games do, I would make more money.

Yes, but these are different conditions. The question is "all things being equal, is it better to play against A or B". The stakes aren't equal. z4reio pointed this out above.

You can bet for fat value in limit games and thin value in limit games as well. It's not always about betsizing. But given the popularity of NLHE and PLO relative to every other game type on the planet...it's not that we have a narrow view of what poker can be, it's that we have a realistic view of what poker is today.

Fat value bets in limit are just standard value bets; no need to worry your monster isn't going to get paid off in most scenarios. Thin value is where most people are missing EV in limit.

Yeah, this is true for sure. Just trying to say that there are analogous situations in FL and NL/PL games -- betting when you crush your opponent's calling range and betting when you're slightly ahead of your opponent's calling range as well. Of course, betsizing comes into it in NL games but the situations are very similar...just betsizing in other gametypes can affect the ranges whereas in FL games it can't.

Yeah, I agree that him not being able to transpose the concept of 'big value bets' into his limit games means that he is the one with the narrow view of poker.

If you think about it, you're essentially saying that you have no edge against someone that is worse than you at poker.

Clearly an oxymoron. You just haven't learned how to adjust your game yet.

I got into the "fancy play style" for a while with my home and casino 1-2 games. I was playing some pretty weak people, but I didn't play the style that well and they sometimes kicked my ass over and over untill I went back to ABC TAG and much better results. Think a better skilled group of opponents is tougher generally to have a better winrate, But they are much less frustrating than the weaker players who make the occasional outrageous play against you, but pay you off better in the end!

Exactly. If OP's premise were true, then the path to becoming unbeatable at poker would be easy - Just play completely randomly.

I've played up to 25/50nl online and from my experience, it's usually better to be playing against guys you have reads on and some kind of tendency if they are playing anything close to reasonable. Obviously if someone has no clue and is playing 80-90% VPIP, it's going to be an easy game, but looking at someone who plays a more ABC 25/20 style vs someone who plays around 25/20 but has the tendency to do really aggressive moves randomly and with hands he normally shouldnt, it can really be a lot more difficult to win against.