[stigmata]

I disagree so much in these two party threads.

Most of the regulars play solid poker in 99% of their hands. Many of them tilt or have some spewy tendencies. But aggression can rarely be a huge mistake, especially when there is history. Hands that look awful in a vacuum (pushing Axs preflop, pushing the flop with gutshot+overcards, etc) can be good when there is a certain table dynamic. Many of the hands posted in the previous thread may have been justifiable to some extent.


The table above from Unarmed illustrates that all the regulars are winning players. Wow, what a [censored] suprise.

There is a world of difference between a 50/14 fish and a 22/15 mediocre tag. The fish is making a mistake on 50% of his hands. The tag is making a major mistake on perhaps 1% of his hands, and this is probably a "bad" tag.

95% of our profit comes from fish. There are very few regulars who are a good reason for sitting. Saying that any of the regulars are "bad" is plain wrong, and probably egotistical. Saying that you can win good money playing against these "bad" tags is plain wrong. When we play against each other, winrates become very marginal and variance very high.

Just look at the pokerstars 1k game - I honestly don't think the regulars in that game are that much better than us. The simple difference is the number of out & out fish.