Poker Qustion From Apak

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]

As for ganging up on the "fish", I haven't seen that. The pros would rather eliminate another pro first. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I see why and I also see that it is irrelevant that they want to see a pro gone first.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, there are other players at the table besides you and the pros. Why would they single you out?

[/ QUOTE ]

They would siingle you out because the very definition of a fish includes "Easy".

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, there are strategies you can use to exploit the pros if they try to push you around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look if you do not feel that pro's would tend to push you around because they view you as a fish we really do not have anything to discuss. In my experience in live poker and tournament poker I have found that it is much better to play against "fish" than a pro. Consequently, I and most pro's I knoiw hunt for the fish. At the final table of a major tournament this hunting will become, in my opinion, a percieved feeding frenzy. In live poker one can and should use this misconception to ones advantage but in final table play with escalating blinds this can be a big problem to deal with. Time is not on your side. gotta take a shower.

leaponthis

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to take an example, Neil Channing's written about how he tends to try to find out about unknown opponents' experience level by making apparently casual conversation, because it might make a difference in a close decision later. So if Neil turns up on your left and politely explains to you what's going on during the chip race, do you (a) politely take an interest and thank him for the explanation, (b) laugh and say you've long enjoyed his poker essays, especially the ones on the uses of table talk, you'd hoped you'd bump into him on the tournament circuit sooner or later, and it's a pleasure to meet him, or (c) smile ambiguously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definately not B! I would tell him I have herpes and that he sould not lean so close to me. It might give him something to think about other than his game--especially if the dealer is sloppy and I have to push his cards to him.

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of hands into the final table, you're BB, the
smallest stack goes all-in with a total of 2BB. It's
folded to you, and you pause a second and then call with your Q6o.
After you win, you're asked whether you were seriously
considering not calling. Do you (a) say, no, of course
not, you'd have called with any two cards, or (b) say nothing or something less clear-cut?

[/ QUOTE ]

First choice is say nothing. Second choice is say something like "I thought I didn't put enough in for the big blind," or "I thought I was suited." But first choice is better.

[ QUOTE ]
It's been suggested there's nothing you can say to a pro that would alter the way they play against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm more concerned about you altering his play against you to his playing better.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience in live poker and tournament poker I have found that it is much better to play against "fish" than a pro. Consequently, I and most pro's I knoiw hunt for the fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's better to play against fish. Really not relevant.

And searching for live games with fish in them is what all good players do. But that is different than ganging up on him in the game, especially in a tournament. I try to isolate the fish if I can. But in a tournament situation, if I see you keying on the fish I know you are making yourself vulnerable to attack from other players in the process. And if I have the opportunity, I will exploit it.

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it's better to play against fish. Really not relevant.


[/ QUOTE ]

What?

[ QUOTE ]
But that is different than ganging up on him in the game, especially in a tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. And the "ganging up on him" is not something that is agrred to by the pro's. It is something that appears to happen in that a pro in position to isolate or attack the "fish" will do so if given the chance. They will do this in situations that they are not likely to do against a percieved competent player. Therefore you will have a "ganging up" effect even though it was not planned that way. Interesting that you say that should you see this occur that you would exploit this. I am assuming that you mean that you see another pro attacking a fish and you will exploit this. Well, that just emphasizes my point. Pro's know this so you will see them making moves and isolating the fish when the situation is right. If they feel that someone in between is competent and understands this they are less likely to go after the fish and will leave him to the other pro. Still to the percieved fish this constitutes ganging up.

leaponthis

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, if you tell the guy on your left during the drinks break that you're going to play near-unexploitable jam-or-fold short-stacked tournament strategy whenever you get into an
SB/BB game, which you've fully memorised for stacks
up to 10BB, and he's welcome to test you verbally with
strategy questions for the next few minutes, I imagine he'd do something with the information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Not because of this question but because of information you gave away in this paragraph which illustrates my point. I'll let you think about it. I'll explain myself in white below (highlight to read):


<font color="white"> You called it a "drink break". Besides my never having heard that term used, suggesting lack of experience, it gives away another nugget of information. Smokers will be running outside for a smoke and most of the older guys will be running to the bathroom. Your calling it a "drink break" suggests you are relatively young.

This is the kind of thing I was pointing out. If you say nothing you don't have to worry about giving out information inadvertently. To an expert, the very way you word a phrase or question gives him information. Not being an expert you would never realize your mistake. </font>

[George Rice]

I don't want to get into an endless debate over this point.

It's not a choice between being thought of as better than you are versus being thought of as worse than you are. It may very well be better to be thought of as better than you are. I certainly would prefer that against pros.

In this case it's about changing someone's opinion. And for the reasons I've given, it's better to say nothing. Trying to change the pro's opinions will probably hurt you in the long run.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

I'm still mulling this over, but I wanted to throw out this follow-up question:

Is it possible that the answer is different if you are actually the 4th best player at the table vs if you really are the fish and are the 10th best player at a ten-handed table?

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible that the answer is different if you are actually the 4th best player at the table vs if you really are the fish and are the 10th best player at a ten-handed table?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the answer differs for 4th best vs 10th best. 4th best wants respect. 10th best wants chips.

leaponthis

[Shandrax]

There is also another reason not to play like a donkey: It's broadcasted on national TV and you don't want Sexton or Chad to make jokes about your play. It could eventually cost you a nice contract with Pokerstars...or wait, it may even get you a contract with Pokerstars since their advertisement concept is "Every idiot can win at poker. Try it yourself!"

[siwicki]

hooker