How many 38+ vpip do you want at your table?

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys think its more profitable than let's say 3 retards to your right and 2 TAGs to your left?


[/ QUOTE ]



Your long term winrate at a table is determined by the sum of mistakes your opponents make. Substituting players who makes a lot of mistakes with players who makes fewer mistakes can never ever be good - unless you suck at adjusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely true, and I agree with your point.

But one possible small exception to note is that when the guy on your left cold-calls you a little too much, it is possible that his mistake takes from both of your equities and passes them to the blinds.

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys think its more profitable than let's say 3 retards to your right and 2 TAGs to your left?


[/ QUOTE ]



Your long term winrate at a table is determined by the sum of mistakes your opponents make. Substituting players who makes a lot of mistakes with players who makes fewer mistakes can never ever be good - unless you suck at adjusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely true, and I agree with your point.

But one possible small exception to note is that when the guy on your left cold-calls you a little too much, it is possible that his mistake takes from both of your equities and passes them to the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

ya good point.

[Victor]

theres quite a few situations where opponents combined mistakes hurt your expectation. combined outs, pooling effect, etc.

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
Your long term winrate at a table is determined by the sum of mistakes your opponents make. Substituting players who makes a lot of mistakes with players who makes fewer mistakes can never ever be good - unless you suck at adjusting.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is too simplistic, and it overlooks the value of position and "schooling".

Say you're in a 6-max game with a horrible loose passive player on your immediate right.

The LP open limps (as he often does) and you raise with a wider-than-usual range. Would you rather have the players behind you fold, cold-call, or 3-bet with hands like JTo, Q9s, 44, A7o, K9s, 87s, KTo. If the players behind are inclined to get involved, and you adjust by tightening up your isolation standards, you will win less from the huge fish than you could have if the players behind you were tighter. If you keep your isolation standards the same, you will be stuck playing lots of very marginal hands in ~4 way raised pots out of position.

When players behind you get involved, they inflate the pot (making loose post-flop play by the player(s) on your right more correct) and take equity away from you. They also negate your positional advantage.

Players that are really bad will obviously be putting money in your pocket no matter where they sit, but players behind you that are too loose, but only kind of bad, will definately detract from how much you can make off a big fish sitting on your right, without contributing enough to your earn to make up for it.

Here's another way to look at it: Say having the button postflop in worth X BB/100. If a player cold-calls or 3-bets 50% of your raises, he will cost you money unless he figures to lose at least 1.5X BB/100 to you.

EDIT:

I just noticed you were talking about opponents making mistakes rather than just being too loose. In that case I agree with you. Assumiung something around 30/20 is optimal for a particular game, I want the too loose guys on my right and the too tight guys on my left. When I said I want tighter players on my left, I don't mean standard 30/20 tough-playing TAGs. I mean weak/predictable 23/17 "TAGs".

[vmacosta]

this is such a dumb speculative argument. Just go through a large db and filter for games with 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 high vpip fish. Compare winrates. Disjunction already did that for us in another thread in this same forum ~ 1 month ago.