The obsession with the word "Bumhunter," and why it makes no sense

The obsession with the word "Bumhunter," and why it makes no sense
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 the word "bumhunter" is thrown around like crazy at 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.

#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

#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?

#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.

#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.

Conclusion

So for some reason certain people get singled out for being 6max bumhunters. My friend and fellow DragTheBar.com coach Leatherass is famous for it. Now BoyWonder, another very, very good player, has recently been attacked for the same thing. The Dang brothers also get mentioned in the list.

It is just getting completely out of control, there is a horde of people who are attacking individuals for being "bumhunters" when the term itself and the reasons for the criticisms simply make no logical sense. Maybe it has to do with what these guys have in common. Their work ethic to improving their game, their high win rates over large samples of hands, and the fact that they are all 7-figure winners at poker.

Is this where we are as an online poker society? Anyone who works their ass off to develop a strong game and then makes a million doing it is automatically marginalized, trivialized, and blasted for it? Simply because people have seen them leave the table with the fish, the same way everyone else does? Somehow that makes their results meaningless and their talents irrelevant? Are these not people that we all can learn something from? We shouldn't respect their poker game and their big win rates for absurd reasons like this?

I'm gonna wrap this up with 2 quotes from an aejones post from a recent 2+2 thread:

"It would be impossible to bumhunt 50k hands a month, but table selecting (and especially position selecting) is certainly not a punishable offense." -aejones

I'd like to thank him for clearing this up, since 50k hands in a month for an online pro is a joke. Oh yeah, his favorite "bumhunter" of all time, Leatherass, who aejones attacks and berates at every opportunity in his videos and on 2+2, plays at least twice that many hands every month and has for years.

The rest of his post is pretty good too and directly refutes the common bumhunting "wisdom" discussed above, all of which he's championed over the years.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to everyone not calling every good player online a bumhunter, its especially bad for those doing the attacking because they are throwing away any interest in learning from some of the best players online, and that is burning money.

Hunter Bick,
DragTheBar.com

Discuss.