A response

This is a blog I wrote in response to a blog written by Hunter "BeachJustice" Bick.

I'd like to apologise beforehand for any grammatical or spelling errors or incoherent writing. I wrote this in notepad while multi-tabling and am too lazy to proof read or re-write anything. Also, I'd like to apologise if the manner of my writing seems angry or annoyed...while some of the things in Hunter's blog
didn't sit well with me, I am far more annoyed at dropping 8k this session. Oh, who am I kidding, the 3 of you who keep up with this blog know very well that I am an eternally angry and annoyed human being. :)

BeachJustice, I would like to welcome you to my blog and hope you stop by whenever you get the urge to read some angry writing from a mean individual. Or a drunk hillbilly (daduweewah)

Please keep in mind this is my opinion. You may agree of disagree, but like everyone with an opinion, I am fairly certain that my opinion is the right one. If you see things differently, feel free to write a rebuttal in the comments section or leave a link there.


So without further adieu:

I used the same format Hunter did. His text is first and my responses follow in Bold.



The term "bumhunter" gets thrown around like crazy these days, and it basically makes no sense at all. Originally the term was coined to describe someone who sits around waiting for heads up action, but refuses to play anyone who is not a total fish. Then it started to mean someone who only plays bad players but not anyone good, so the meaning started applying to more and more people, but the concept remained the same: heads up player who only plays weak players. Some people look down on that, which is their right, but then they bash bumhunters for their high winrate and high earnings by saying they suck at poker because they bumhunt. Alright fine, I don't really agree with that, but at least there's a reasonable thought process behind that argument when it applies only to heads up players.

But now "bumhunter" is being applied liberally to 6max players. How is it even possible to bumhunt at 6max? The very nature of 6max, and the reason I'm getting back into it, is that you simply cannot avoid playing with good players if they are at your table. You have to play pots with them, period. So the answer to that question is, well if there's a fish and 4 regs at the table, then you're bumhunting.

That's just ridiculous, it literally makes no sense.

So what are the criteria for being a 6max bumhunter? Here are the reasons that seem to make up the prevailing "wisdom" and why they are

so ridiculous.




This is just incorrect. First of all, just because you're at a table with another good player does not mean you have to play pots with them. It is possible to go out of your way to not play pots with them...as many "heads up bumhunters" do when they join a 6 max game that is populated by some combination of weak and strong players.

Let's use Hunter's example of 1 fish + 4 regs at a 6max table and our hero takes the 6th seat. He plays 2 orbits, the fish busts, hero then sits out. Four regs continue playing each other, hoping more fish would sit. A fish sits down, hero then sits back in. This is the very definition of bumhunting a 6max game. It does make sense and is absolutely not ridiculous.


#1. They only sit at tables with fish.

First off, why would sitting at a table with 5 other players be a particularly profitable situation? Are we trying to make money at poker or are we here to measure various body parts? I didn't realize that the egos of online poker players have eclipsed their greed. If that's what's happened, then poker just got a lot more profitable.

Secondly, a "fish" on most midstakes tables is someone who's playing a 35 vpip. Thats probably not a profitable style for them, but they are by no means a 60/5 type guy who is bleeding money. Yet even if you make the effort to find tables with one weak player, 80% of your competition is still good thinking players. So if you have a winrate of 3 or 4 BB/100 and are one of the top earners at your limit, despite the fact that everyone tries to find weak players (why else are the waiting lists long when Scout shows up), then you are a bumhunter and suck at poker. The fact is when 80% of your competition are tough, good players and you never have an edge against them, you can't win at 3 BB/100 just by having one fish at your table. This whole train of thought makes absolutely no sense.


I am not exactly sure what Hunters first paragraph is trying to say...why wouldn't sitting with 5 other players be profitable?

Nevertheless, people play for different reasons and maybe some play for ego or a challenge or what not, but many players who are siting in tough games are either pushing small edges over slightly weaker regulars because there are, shocker coming here, no other games available...or they are trying to keep the game alive in the hopes that a weaker player may sit down.

The second paragraph is Hunters idea of what a fish is at midstakes, his idea of the competition, and that even if you game select then you are still supposedly playing tough players. Okay, great...but irrelevant. If you are a bumhunter, it doesn't mean you are bad at poker. Chances are, if you are a bumhunter you may not be as good at poker as someone who isn't a bumhunter but it certainly doesn't mean you can't be better. However, if you go out of your way to play at tables with only complete fish and then stop playing the second the fish leaves, you are a bumhunter! Simple. It is completely irrelevant that there may be good players at the table when you're there.

You are there because the fish is there. Bumhunter, fishhunter, same thing. Again, makes complete sense.


#2. They leave as soon as the fish leaves, and this in turn is bad for games.

Let's get something straight. EVERYONE does this at mid/high stakes. Everytime I play a session, I'll open what looks like a good table from the lobby, only to find the entire table sitting out. Or I'll notice that one of my 12 tables is not running because the fish sat out, so everyone else did too. People don't even wait for their big blind anymore, they just sit out. This is STANDARD, everyone does it, so singling out anyone specific as a bum hunter when they do this is simply ridiculous.

I mean, when Scout leaves the game does everyone keep playing? Of course not, he's driving the action, and he's why everyone is there. This is just how poker works, but suddenly everyone is a bum hunter if they decide to waste their time playing a bunch of other good regulars instead of using that time to find a more profitable table? Some say that you should play an orbit to "keep the game going." Who cares if that one table keeps going or not, there are plenty to choose from, we're online here, its not like we're in a casino where if our table breaks we might have to wait two hours to get another seat.

And how is this bad for the games? A fish leaves, the table breaks. A new fish shows up elsewhere, the table fills up, the waiting list fills up, the fish busts, everyone clears out, and this process repeats itself. This is how its always been, at least since early 2004 when I started playing. And if this is actually somehow bad for the games, why aren't the games dead when everyone behaves in this exact manner, and has for years?


Let's get something straight. NOT EVERYONE does this at mid/high stakes. But yes, it's possible Hunter opens the table finds a table full of regs and bumhunters or super duper game selectors if that's more your alley...and...that is exactly what is wrong with online poker today! What a shocker! I am not sure if this is standard, it may be standard for some people, it may not be standard for others.

Certainly not everyone, as Hunter would have you believe, does this. And guess what, those that do...are...wait for it...BUMHUNTERS! I find it appalling that he says "everyone does it" or it's the "standard"...so because a bunch of people do soemthing, it is acceptable? That's a great theory...why be part of the solution when it's easier being part of the problem? Because everyone does it, right?

Using scout is a great example! Scout, a known losing player, who I am going to assume is well off financially. So this player sits at a 6max 25-50 game that is instantly filled up, this very same player knows he's a losing player and is probably playing for fun, just to have a good time. He burns through 3 buyins and quits. Okay so then the game instantly breaks and all these good regulars quit.

Let's say we had some 5-10 reg watching and maybe he's a weaker player and wanted to take a shot in this 25-50 game. That's an extra buyin to win. Maybe there was a fish, who isn't as loaded as scout, watching and wanted to sit down but got scared when all of the players suddenly sat out to avoid playing each other. That's a buyin. Maybe a fish came 10 minutes too late to find no game available to join because all these regulars think it's the "standard" to quit when a fish does. That's another buyin.

How is a "fish" even supposed to sit down when there aren't games going? In order for a fish to sit, there needs to be a game available to sit in! How is a game supposed to go if everyone decides to wait till a fish shows up? Apparently, I'm really playing at the wrong times because I don't remember the last time I saw a complete fish just sitting and waiting for action...other than bumhunters at heads
up tables.

I think Hunter may still think it is 2004. But it's not. It's 2010. Games are much tougher, fish are scarce. You can't pull up any site and find a fish at every table or loads of tables to join. For example, opening fulltilt I see 15 full 6max games going...out of 96k people online! That's 90 occupied seats. And I didn't bother to check how many are multitabling 6 or 8 of those 15 games. The fact is, the mid/high stakes player pools are shrinking, at least on us sites and not trying to start games or keep them going to welcome recreational players HURTS the games.

Just because the games aren't completely dead, doesn't mean that they aren't dying or at the very least could be better than they are.


#3. They don't help start new tables.

This one is just flailing, here's why. Everyone knows one of the easiest ways to get a seat with a fish is to start a new table, this is online 6max poker 101. Fish don't sign up for waiting lists, they grab the first seat they see. As a result, starting a new table gets them to sit with you, this is basic obvious stuff. So wouldn't it stand to reason that any "bumhunter" would be starting lots of new tables? The argument against that is they "hate playing shorthanded or heads up."

Maybe they can't handle a HU match against a good player while playing 12 tables? They know that, but they also know they are walking away from a potentially +EV spot if a fish shows up. So how exactly are they bumhunting when they pass up this opportunity?I might be one of the few people who often welcomes heads up action when the table dies against a regular, simply because I've played so much HU that I think I have a HU edge when we both have 12 6max tables going. But the fact is if I'm in a couple tough spots elsewhere, its often better to just close the HU table so I can focus on the big-pot decisions. But when someone plays 3 HU hands against me and
then quits, do I think less of him as a person? Do I lose respect for his 6max game?

Do I rush to 2+2 to call him out? Of course not, he's making the best EV decision for his current situation and doesn't want to play heads up or 3 handed while he has a bunch other tables open. How is this not common sense? Why is this such a big deal?

Here's the final reason this take is so ridiculous. Since when were there a shortage of mid-stakes games going on Stars and FTP? Why is everyone all of a sudden so concerned about starting new tables? Why does anyone care about this? Until you get to $10/$20 there are plenty of games going, and new tables fill up quickly. I guess I didn't get the memo that outlined that as a professional poker, one of my obligations is to play with other professionals to start new tables because the 150 already sitting there aren't enough.


Here, I am in agreement with Hunter. Fish don't join lists. The easiest way to get a fish is to start a new table. However, where we disagree is that bumhunters start new tables or games. It is more often than not that they only join a table when a fish joins. I can't begin to count the number of times a reg has set at a table for hours waiting for action. A bad player with 20bb shows up, doubles through the regular once or twice and then the table instantly fills with regulars. 6max bumhunting 101.

Paragraph 2...Hunter plays all players unless he's busy. Totally fine. Nobody plays heads up when they have 12 6max games going. Moving on.

Why does anyone care about starting new games? Other than the obvious need to have games going?

5-10 Games going while I am writing this: Fulltilt: 96k people online, 15 games going. Stars: 170k people online, 10 games going. If you look at smaller sites, 5k people online, 1 game going. And all of this is including shallow and cap games. How in the world is this an abundance of games? What am I missing here?

And of course no says you have to sit and play anyone or help start a game or anything. Hell, feel free to be a parasite and join the game created by the two regulars who spent an hour playing each other heads up hoping that a fish would join. You should immediately run to grab a seat in this game, quickly stack the fish, then leave as fast possible until another fish joins. But you are not a
bumhunter...oh, wait a minute...

#4. They only buy in for enough to cover the fish.

Again, this is standard, smart gambling. Barry Greenstein, in his book "Ace on the River," page 96 said this: "If you are serious about making money, don't put yourself in situations where you can lose a lot and win a little." So if $10/$20 is above your bankroll, but there's a fish with $1k on the table, should you not sit because you aren't comfortable putting $2k on the table or should you sit with $1100 to cover the fish? No one's short-stacking for 20bbs to cover another short-stacking fish, that's just ridiculous and its not the issue here. If the fish has $1k on this table and you buy-in for $2k, the most you can win from the fish is $1k, but you can lose $2k to a good player. That's not a very good option in general, especially if the limit is higher than your normal game. So why not put in enough to cover the fish while also protecting your bankroll? Since when did everyone hate 50bb stacks so much? They don't ruin games like 20bb shortstackers do. What exactly is the problem here.


This is fine. People can buy in for whatever they want if they're scared. Scared money is welcome too...as long as it's in play.



Conclusion

I just think some of Hunters views are simply incorrect and some of the things he talks about are detrimental to the longevity of this game we love to hate.

This has already been a long enough and very repetitive blog so I'm going to wrap this up here. Judge for yourselves.