Why do we hate donkeys?

[HappyOD]

In HOH vol II, Mr. Harrington addresses the topic of "Controlling Pot Odds". One of the basic concepts is to make a call by your opponent incorrect for certain types of hands. I have found that if my opponent makes a play that I have conciously and actively enticed him into, then, I am far less likely to get mad. I'm always very happy for a few seconds after I get a call that I believe is incorrect, so I think it puts me in a better frame of mind, even if I consequently take a bad beat. Also, when I see his hand after he beats me, I get some ego gratification that I did a good job enticing the call. Controlling pot odds requires me to put my opponent on a range of hands, figure his outs and odds, and then calculate my bet. I think by being so immersed in the details, it tends to seperate my emotions from the game, somewhat. And finally, studying HOH vols I-III has seemed to make the game much less emotional for me. I think it's because he takes such an unemotional approach in his writing and analysis.

So anyway, these things have worked for me.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From reading people think deeper than I do, I read maximum value plummets at poor player number six.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind quoting your source there, Mike? I believe your claim is incorrect, and would always be happy to back that up by sitting at the 10-donkey table rather than the 6-donkeys-and-4-tags table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes mike is clearly wrong in terms of expectation.
What leads to the misconception is that poker equivalent of the sharp ratio can be increased at tables like this.

For example the 10 seated table full of Lagtards is clearly more profitable than table with you and three tight exploitable semi-passive players.
However the latter gives you low variance with a highish expectation, while the table full of lagtards has a higher expectation but a disproportionately higher variance.

Krieger wrote about loose aggressive tables. Of course like most players I wouldn't pass up the oportunity, but if you can't handle or understand the increased variance then I guess you might want to avoid them.

[Mike]

I feel you may wish to rethink what you are saying. We live in reality. If I own a bank, perhaps I can play at a table of continous reloading bad players who play to the river with any two cards and of course over the long run I will come out on top - but is it worth it?

Ever been on a 30 bb downturn each session over many sessions at a table like this? Wait until it happens and see how decimated your bank roll becomes if you have any left at the end. It is a is a very slow crawl to bank roll recovery, as the world goes on around you.

In the real world, there is a practical limit to our bankroll. There is a point where the bankroll needed to beat these types of players at one level and be able to absorb the ups and downs that go with the long run exceeds reasonable and realistic expectation of profit potential for bankroll in proportion to game size.

Simply put, there is an easier game at another table and perhaps at another level. The risk needs to balance the reward in the (reasonable) short term. A passive $10 - 20 game is much better than a wild five or more raising to the river $4 - 8 game.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
The risk needs to balance the reward in the (reasonable) short term

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes hence my reference to the sharpe ratio. It's an investment term but the principle is what you are applying.

[aramfingal]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is more satisfying and sometimes easier to beat the better players.

[/ QUOTE ]
do you find it less frustrating when a good player sucks out on you?

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
do you find it less frustrating when a good player sucks out on you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually do.

I think it's an interesting point, but I think that there are 2 reasons why it doesn't bother me as much.

First of all, if a player that I think is good sucks out, then I successfully manipulated them into a situation that was bad for them. This makes me feel better.

Secondly, I can learn something from the nature of this player's mistake and the way he got exploited in the first place.

So, I think that in the case of getting sucked out on by a bad player, you just have to chalk it up and walk away. There is no further value there. But losing to a suck out by a good player can have both emotional and practical value if you are able to extract a reusable lesson from it.

Of course, the flip side is that the money will be harder to recover from the good player's stack.

Just my .02 cents.

[aramfingal]

[ QUOTE ]
if a player that I think is good sucks out, then I successfully manipulated them into a situation that was bad for them. This makes me feel better.


[/ QUOTE ]

mister you're a better man than i.

[aramfingal]

[ QUOTE ]
A passive $10 - 20 game is much better than a wild five or more raising to the river $4 - 8 game.

[/ QUOTE ]
you are not saying that is bad to have too many donkeys at your table, you're saying its bad to have too many maniacs at your table.

[omaha]

Yes, give me the weak tighties any day, or, alternatively, decent hands against the maniacs!

Problem is, of course, we need to take decent hands up against the maniacs wide range.

Also, there are maniacs, and then there are MANIACs. I have a reputation for being the resident maniac at 25 buck buy in pub poker. Simply because i raise when i should, and, when i have less than 12bb, I will shove pf. This leads to many all ins, but the fishies just dont understand (which is a good thing!)

[goofball]

The first reply was serious. You if you hate donkeys you don't fully understand poker.