Hold 'em. Loose players getting lucky.

[UK-21]

Have just lost all of my very modest stake playing online against a loose player who won two successive hands on lucky last cards - this was a five player table, and the second time he pulled one of the two cards left in the deck that he needed on the river - so his 18-1 chance paid off.

I appreciate that eventually the maths will catch up with him if he continues to pile in the chips on such long shots, but it set me thinking - if you're on a table with a lot of loose players no matter how well you play the odds are one will get lucky. Should I be walking away?

 

[callipygian]

if you're on a table with a lot of loose players no matter how well you play the odds are one will get lucky. Should I be walking away?

The amount you win when they don't get lucky will be well worth the times they do.

For example, if everyone were to call every bet to the river, AA at a full table would win just 25% of the time. That is, 75% of the time you'll get "cracked". But the times that you do win, you will win an absurd amount of money (9x whatever you bet). The EV on this play is still 9*0.25-1*0.75 = +1.5, or a 150% return on your investment.

Now, just because you're going to win doesn't mean that you should stay. If your goal is to become a better poker player, you want to be the worst player at the table, not the best player. You're not going to get any better at poker by beating morons. But you'll make money.

If you're there to make money, stay.
If you're there to become a better poker player, leave.

No shame in either one.

 

[moo321]

Have just lost all of my very modest stake playing online against a loose player who won two successive hands on lucky last cards - this was a five player table, and the second time he pulled one of the two cards left in the deck that he needed on the river - so his 18-1 chance paid off.

I appreciate that eventually the maths will catch up with him if he continues to pile in the chips on such long shots, but it set me thinking - if you're on a table with a lot of loose players no matter how well you play the odds are one will get lucky. Should I be walking away?

You shouldn't have lost your whole bankroll on 3 hands. You were playing too high. Suckouts happen, and they happen a lot more online because you're playing more hands. You should have, at a bare minimum, 10 buy-ins for no limit.

 

[UK-21]

Well yes, I was playing over and beyond what I had sitting in front of me.

But there'll usually be someone at the table with more chips in front, and if they're playing loose and stupid, with a lucky card there'll always be that occasion when they clean you up. That was really the crux of the question. If you're short in the chips, do you just not play in such situations and protect your chips or ensure you have a load more in front of you in the first place to parry the risk of a lucky hand (or hands - two on the trot in my case). The first's easy to do, the second not always so.

There is a third option of course, and that is just to live with it and know the maths are on your side - and remind yourself of all of the times you've taken the candy.

 

[callipygian]

If you're short in the chips, do you just not play in such situations and protect your chips or ensure you have a load more in front of you in the first place to parry the risk of a lucky hand (or hands - two on the trot in my case). The first's easy to do, the second not always so.

There is a third option of course, and that is just to live with it and know the maths are on your side - and remind yourself of all of the times you've taken the candy.

In general, the third option. If you've got your whole bankroll in front of you, you're probably playing too high stakes. You absolutely want your money all-in when you've got top pair against an opponent's bottom pair, variance be damned.

In some specific cases, the first option is attractive. For example, if you're by far the best player at your table in a multiday tournament with no rebuys, you want to play risk-averse - surviving as a median player is more valuable than a 75% chance of leading with 25% chance of heading home on Day 1.

The second option - to have everyone at your table covered - is your eventual goal, but you can't count on it as a general strategy.

 

[moo321]

Well yes, I was playing over and beyond what I had sitting in front of me.

But there'll usually be someone at the table with more chips in front, and if they're playing loose and stupid, with a lucky card there'll always be that occasion when they clean you up. That was really the crux of the question. If you're short in the chips, do you just not play in such situations and protect your chips or ensure you have a load more in front of you in the first place to parry the risk of a lucky hand (or hands - two on the trot in my case). The first's easy to do, the second not always so.

There is a third option of course, and that is just to live with it and know the maths are on your side - and remind yourself of all of the times you've taken the candy.

If possible, consider short-stacking this game. Buy in for 10-30 big blinds. Wait until someone raises and you have a decent hand preflop, and shove. Or there are 4 limpers and you have a decent preflop hand, and shove. Or wait till you hit top pair on the flop and shove.