Nits are exploitable, and so are fishes. But nits don't give variance, while fishes do suck out (and usually they don't deserve the $)
Wouldn't a consistently increasing red line with an almost 0 blue line be so much better and reliable than a blue line which may go negative so often?
Originally posted by badgerer
you prefer to lose money to players that deserve it. your logic is flawless.
I don't quite get what you mean by this?
My point is won't you be annoyed if you played the hand well and lost?
And the main thing of my thread is not that. I'm saying wouldn't it be more profitable if you consistently win the blinds because nits fold 90% of the time?
Originally posted by tommygecko
Originally posted by badgerer
you prefer to lose money to players that deserve it. your logic is flawless.I don't quite get what you mean by this?
My point is won't you be annoyed if you played the hand well and lost?
And the main thing of my thread is not that. I'm saying wouldn't it be more profitable if you consistently win the blinds because nits fold 90% of the time?
So basically, by your logic, you play bad against fish and get angry when you lose? 
Originally posted by Rihard4a
Originally posted by tommygecko
Originally posted by badgerer
you prefer to lose money to players that deserve it. your logic is flawless.I don't quite get what you mean by this?
My point is won't you be annoyed if you played the hand well and lost?
And the main thing of my thread is not that. I'm saying wouldn't it be more profitable if you consistently win the blinds because nits fold 90% of the time?
So basically, by your logic, you play bad against fish and get angry when you lose?
No. How did you deduce that?
I play a hand well vs a fish. Fish catches 2 outer on river and calls my river bet. I'm annoyed because he played badly and won (chased draw given wrong odds). Logical?
But how does that mean I get angry when I play badly and lose?
And no, it is not really profitable to make a living of just stealing blinds from nits... you can steal 2 rounds of blinds for example, which is 3bb. then you open for 3bb again, and get 3bet. And then it happens again. With nits you will face more 3bets. And then when you have a hand and you get it in vs nit, you blue line is going down if his kicker is better than yours. That's why there is the fish, who give as change to win 10x the amount you win by just taking the blinds.
Originally posted by tommygecko
My point is won't you be annoyed if you played the hand well and lost?
nah not really
I can understand the OP. It is slightly more tilting to lose vs bad players than good ones. With tilt comes bad play. With bad play comes more losses (but now legit losses).
Besides, I am a fish.
/Johan = 
Nits play a very narrow range and overvalue their hands postflop = great implied odds. Call, make two pair +, stack them. 
wait till you get it in set over sets / overpair vs over pair / TP vs TPTK vs the nits.. and guess who's on the losing end.
your gonna love playing with the fishes again.
against nits its always WA / WB and more often than not, your WB 
unless you somehow go insane and make awesone postflop reads and make them fold. but if you can do that, then why not with the fish?
Originally posted by tommygecko
Originally posted by badgerer
you prefer to lose money to players that deserve it. your logic is flawless.I don't quite get what you mean by this?
My point is won't you be annoyed if you played the hand well and lost?
And the main thing of my thread is not that. I'm saying wouldn't it be more profitable if you consistently win the blinds because nits fold 90% of the time?
I get more tilted when i play a hand badly and win then when i play it well and lose.
I get more tilted when i play a hand badly and win then when i play it well and lose.
It's not the first time you have said something very very wise.
I used to be like that too (ehr... not really wise of course, never been that, ...), but my bank account persuaded me to view things differently ♦.
/Johan =
it's amazing how this post gets so many views. hehe
Yea vs nits always raising in LP and playing set mining vs their raises really seems very profitable and low variance to me. And it's so easy to stack them off because they bet horrendously big like TPTK is god.
Too bad it's hard to find a table full of nits nowadays, and even most of them can adapt to loose raisers.
What do you guys think is the best reg/fish ratio on a FR/SH table? I don't like too many fishes it sucks to play AA 5 way vs unknowns
I love nits to my left, loose to my right.
Nits I steal against, loose players I raise.
If you have a problem with getting beaten by worse hands, then find a hand where you got it in REALLY bad and still won.
Print that hand.
Now every time you get sucked out on, look at it and say, "My turn will come".
If you get tilted by one hand, I'm going to wager that you actually have a huge build-up of tilt, that gets unleashed by that one hand.
Even though you don't notice it, it is there, and it is ALREADY AFFECTING YOUR GAME. Even before the bad beat that sets it off, you are not playing your best.
Get a copy of The Mental Game of Poker by Jared Tendler.
Read his Q&A Thread
Please, don't just read them.
Set goals, create a plan, work the plan, track the results.
You need to be willing to take risks with large amounts of money to succeed in Poker. You need to control those risks, and you need to do it without fear.
Playing vs nits you win or lose little by little.
Playing vs maniacs you win a lot, and you control how little -- or how much --you lose.
Good thread -- I'm glad you posted it because it got me thinking...
--BM
Originally posted by tommygecko
Originally posted by Rihard4a
Originally posted by tommygecko
Originally posted by badgerer
you prefer to lose money to players that deserve it. your logic is flawless.I don't quite get what you mean by this?
My point is won't you be annoyed if you played the hand well and lost?
And the main thing of my thread is not that. I'm saying wouldn't it be more profitable if you consistently win the blinds because nits fold 90% of the time?
So basically, by your logic, you play bad against fish and get angry when you lose?
No. How did you deduce that?
I play a hand well vs a fish. Fish catches 2 outer on river and calls my river bet. I'm annoyed because he played badly and won (chased draw given wrong odds). Logical?
But how does that mean I get angry when I play badly and lose?
I deduced that by bolding your statement. If you play well vs good player and lose and don't then vs bad players it's vice versa.
Don't tilt, all that matters is that you played well.
