[Closed] Where do the cretins come from?

so ur point is u want to play against better players?

u want to play against dudes who make less mistakes?

grow up...

In a way, yes. It is easier to play against people who actually know what they are doing, or at least think, that they know what they are doing. Such kind of players are generally predictable. But if a player does not know himself what he is doing, then how can you?

One idiot in heads up is the perfect situation. Several idiots, however, raising and re-raising with crap, and you must have a lot of luck to beat them.

nah bro i'm not with u on this one.

i used to think like that

Such kind of players are generally predictable.

but no i have to say now that it aint correct.poker atm is full of 2 things struggling idiots and winning players.If u seriously believe u can win more out off the winning players than out of the losers then dunno what to say man,
just gl

I did not say that. As I see it, there are 5 kind of players:

*Pros - They are obviously self-evident.
*Winning players - Agressive players, who win more often than not, take advantage of other players and advantageous situations, but are not yet good enough to be called pros. They are predictable, if you have notes on them.
*Passive players - Players who might think they know the game, but are just not agresive enough to win. Those can easily be abused.
*Morons - Players who have either no idea what they are doing, or are just gambling. Thus one must have luck against them.
*Common Americans - Not capable of making complex decisions and understanding the dynamics of the game. Do not have a slightest idea what they are doing.

For example, assume you are on the bubble on the small blind with a random hand, and everybody has folded to you. The BB is chipleader, you being second, and very close to him, and there is one shortstack, who has only 1-2 BB left. If the BB is in any way a decent player, he will fold almost all his hands to a push, and can thus be abused. (He might push when raised). A passive player will just fold. But such a move can not be made against idiots, who either call you with a fairly high range, or re-raise.

If you can't even beat bad players, you've probably reached the peak of your poker career. Also you conclude someone's skill level can be deduced from his nationality, relying on a practically non-existent sample size. Point is, your judgment is so clouded with frustration you probably don't even realize what you typed.

Originally posted by Styr
Now I see, why some people play JackBlack, or BlackJack, especially at casinos where they do not use shuffle machines, or play roulette fitted with hearing aids and computers. People with skill can utilize their advantage there, but poker against complete idiots is pure luck. Against one idiot it would indeed be profitable, but any more of them, and it is not. Even if you win against one, you most likely will lose to the second.

It's hilarious how you call other people cretins and idiots and then type something like this.

Originally posted by Berzerger
It's hilarious how you call other people cretins and idiots and then type something like this.

Card Counting in BlackJack can be done, and is advantageous. The same is true with roulette prediction machines. (I have seen one, so I know).
Using either of those methods is a completely different matter, of course.

I probably lack the sense of humour.

I suggest you go play WSOP or something similar... Perhaps an EPT. I'm sure that there will be a good enough average skill level for you to have no problems winning it :). Oh, and have you heard about the russians? It is strongly believed that they're hackers, they win like every flip against me!

Primzi

Its fun to moan but seriously this is a fridge too far.... even on the poor americans....

I was perhaps overreacting when writing this topic. I do not mind losing coinflips half as much, if the winning player would make a correct play, either calling with a better hand, a hand that has a reasonable chance to win, or calling with good pot odds, or calling my steal when he knows I am stealing and has a reasonable hand to beat me. Surely I do not like losing, but that is part of the game, and if I lose because a mistake of my own, then it just makes my play that much better the next time.

It is much easier to outplay an opponent, when the hand does not go to showdown. One simply plays against the opponent, not against his cards. The maniacs and idiots, on the other hand can mostly be beat only with a playable hand, and there is always a chance of losing, no matter how good your hand may be.

As for the WSOP, I was very close to getting there. Got busted out playing Step 7 in Full Tilt.

Originally posted by Styr
The same is true with roulette prediction machines. (I have seen one, so I know).

Solid evidence.

Saying that the "common-american" are dumb is foolish. Im sure they dont have any more or any less dumb people then any other country.

There is just a lot of people from America who play on fulltilt, which is why you end up playing vs them.

If you are not doing as well as you want to, step back, analyze your game and make changes.

Originally posted by Styr
The maniacs and idiots, on the other hand can mostly be beat only with a playable hand, and there is always a chance of losing, no matter how good your hand may be.

Herein lies the truth.

Originally posted by Waiboy

Originally posted by Styr
The maniacs and idiots, on the other hand can mostly be beat only with a playable hand, and there is always a chance of losing, no matter how good your hand may be.

Herein lies the truth.

Indeed. The difference is that maniacs and idiots can easily be beaten with straightforward ABC poker. But some players fall under the delusion they are far superior to everyone at the table and can outplay anyone at will. And when their super tricky call-3bet-5bet shove with 76s gets called by AK, they blame the opponent for making a stupid call rather than avoiding that kind of play against such opponents in the first place. No accusations towards OP.

Originally posted by Berzerger
Indeed. The difference is that maniacs and idiots can easily be beaten with straightforward ABC poker.

Yes, it holds true in cash games, or HU tournaments, where one would win a sum equal to his or her bet, or buy-in. But I do not believe it is neccessarily true in a MTT tournament. I rarely play any cash games, as I find them completely unplayable. But as far as I have understood, there is a lot less of blindstealing and pushes, than there are in any tournament. However, in tournaments many people fail to adjust to the dynamic of the game, and can be abused.

Here is an example: I have played several hours(or slightly less than an hour, in a Super Turbo) to reach the bubble, the final table, or basically the both, and get dealt KK.

KK loses to a random Ace one third of the time. Thus I would instantly finish on the bubble, or on the final table with a minimal amount of prize money, when some idiot thinks his A2 is good to call an all in raise with, or re-raise all in with.

I'll take a FT $5.50 ST tournament with 54 people, in this example. There are 5 players left. 5th place pays $16.20, 4th $27. One third of the time I would win $16.20, two thirds of the time I would win a guaranteed of $27. But as the chipleader I have a fair chance of winning $97.20, if I make it first, and I have a fair chance of making it. Winning this hand does not necessarily increase my chances to win that first place as much, as I'd hope it does.

If I go in with KK in a cash game, or a HU tournament, then it is obviously an instant all in. But should it be in the given situation vs an idiot? A good player might re-raise me with AK or perhaps AQ, or similiar hands, over which I am a slightly better dog. And he would rightly assume I am stealing quite often, thus making it the right play for him. Some good players might even re-raise with any two cards to put pressure on me, when they assume a theft is in progress. I might even fold AK to such a push. A moron, however would simply bet for value with his Ax, or they might try a bluff, believing their hand is still good enough, if called. I would often fold, and avoid stealing against such players, or go directly all in with a relatively good hand to steal his blinds. But when going all in with KK, I'd lose one of every three tournaments, if called, where I'd get much better results by stealing the blinds and outplaying the opponents. Won't outplay the pros, obviously, but I doubt many play at such limits anyway.

I think the 'I have more chance of winning against good players' argument can be summed up with the following example.

Consider a SnG with three places paid. There are four players left, three of whom are 'idiots' (of whatever nationality, let's say English ) and one genius (let's say American) all with 10BB stacks. Two folds, genius pushes all in. ICM says Villain can't call without a very strong hand (say KK+, but I could be wrong). But Villain calls with ATo and wins. He's an idiot, and takes you down with him, spewing equity to the other two idiots. A good player wouldn't call.

But this is a spurious argument. If you're a good player, you should have worked out that the other three are idiots, and push tighter. One of them will bust before you for sure. The skill was in getting to the bubble in the first place, if indeed it was skill and not luck. Just be happy you got to the bubble and make the best of it. If you push KK into Ax and lose, you should still be happy. 70% of the time you double up. And if you think you always lose these 70/30s, well.... the best I can say is that your view of the world is not rational.

i'm not an idiot, and not from america. want to play me?