View Single Post
  #66  
Old 05-09-06, 01:23 PM
Talking Poker's Avatar
Talking Poker Talking Poker is offline
Adminimus Maximus
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Florida Coast
Posts: 27,480
Talking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep Points
Default

The quotes you posted above are Lee agreeing with what I was saying. Aggressive on the right Passive on the left.

You are incorrectly using the terms donkey (which means "bad" if you want a simple definition) and aggressive interchangeably... and that is absolutely not the case. Take these two guys:
1. 90% VP$IP, 2% PRF (Loose Passive).
2. 75% VP$IP, 55% PFR (Loose Aggressive).

Both players are donkeys, FOR SURE... but they are different kinds of donkeys.

We all agree that it would be best to have Player #2 on our right. Lee is suggesting that we want player #1 on our left, and because of this EXTREME case (he sees almost every flop), I agree with him. He's going to call 2 bets every time you raise. But it wouldn't be a problem if he was on your right either (you can still raise and he's still going to call the next time around). The important thing here is that we don't want Player #2 on our left. The table will probably still be profitable for us that way, but our life will be much easier if he's on our right.

If in the limits you play, you are seeing tables full of players like this, I honestly don't think it's even worth targeting specific fish. Just play straight up poker (keep an eye on who might actually be good though), and crush the entire table (in the long run, of course).

Lastly: I've adjusted pshabi's FishFinder Suggestions (VP$IP/PFR filters) to make them even more fishy - I had too many buddies online to choose from, so I decided to go after the fishiest of the fish - even though I have been playing the same limit and game as him. If people are using this system for full ring games (9 or 10 players), they most definitely need to adjust the filters. And they should probably be adjusted at different limits as well.

Basically, the more players at the table and the higher the limit you are playing, the less loose someone needs to be in order to be a fish among his peers (you can lower the VP$IP number in your filter).

IMO, it's not the criteria that matters so much as it is what % of your opponents you are identifying as bigger than average fish. If 50% of the players you are playing with are being labeled as fish, it might be time to tighten up your FishFinding criteria. If, however, only 2% are being labelled as fish, you may want to lower your requirements a bit.
__________________

Got RakeBack?
27% at Full Tilt | 33% at Cake Poker | 30% at Carbon Poker