In a 6-player game, who is more detrimental to the action: the one who never pays or the one who always pays?

[dariana Orasma]

The casual player is boring, the maniac is frightening. But both kill the game: the casual player turns it into a procession, and the maniac turns it into a roulette wheel. The ideal table needs a balance that is rarely achieved. Personally, this type of player stresses me out, but I've learned to coexist and adapt to them.

 

[BaldHead]

In a six-player game, I believe that the player who always calls harms the flow of the game the most.
When a player calls every bet, the game starts to lose its logic. It becomes impossible to properly read hand strength because that player might call with anything. Bluffs and semi-bluffs lose their meaning since he will call anyway. As a result, pots are more often decided purely by luck at showdown.
A player who never calls also affects the game, but it is easier to deal with him. I understand that he plays very cautiously, so I can bet more often against him and take pots without much resistance.
Therefore, in my opinion, the player who constantly calls any bet is worse for the flow of the game, because he makes the hands more random and disrupts the normal strategy of play.

 

[daniel.g]

The casual player is boring, the maniac is frightening. But both kill the game: the casual player turns it into a procession, and the maniac turns it into a roulette wheel. The ideal table needs a balance that is rarely achieved. Personally, this type of player stresses me out, but I've learned to coexist and adapt to them.

They are definitely both dangerous but I love playing with both (in my mind they don’t know what they are doing).. the calm player who doesn’t play many hands will miss enough opportunities to keep a healthy stack unless they have horse shoes… the wild players take themselves out (especially live) the ones I hate dealing with are the wild at the start and if they build a bankroll and play softer… then it’s really a guessing game at that point.. but over time they let their tells slip.

 

[Poker Orifice]

The casual player is boring, the maniac is frightening. But both kill the game: the casual player turns it into a procession, and the maniac turns it into a roulette wheel. The ideal table needs a balance that is rarely achieved. Personally, this type of player stresses me out, but I've learned to coexist and adapt to them.

It depends on what you classify as a 'casual player'? Are they a passive player? Are they extremely tight? Do they limp in too many hands? Are they a novice making it more difficult to range their hands?
Personally I think anyone who plays out from GTO only makes the game better for us. We can learn to exploit them. 'Adapting to them' as you've mentioned, is the key!
Earlier in my poker playing days I had a system I used to help me classify the playing style of other players, taking info. from Phil Helmuth's earliest books & some popular software programs from pre 2010 days. (didn't use the software but did use titles they applied to players to classify their style of play, based on VP$IP, AGG, etc.). With this I incorporated a colour/TAG code for each of the different playing styles (actually had ~10 different types, but maybe 6 main types). Today I still have the same colour codes for tagging players but most of the labels I no longer use... typically only for players who play farther away from typical (GTO) play.

 

[anbu210]

The one who never pays (nit) is more detrimental to the action.

They slow the game down, don’t give action, and make pots smaller.
It becomes harder to get value since they only continue with strong hands.
The player who always pays is actually profitable to have at the table.
They may be unpredictable, but they create action and increase your edge.