| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Tue, 30 May 2006, 11:02pm Post subject: Comments: Improve Your Chance Of Winning...
|
 |
|
Full House
Joined: 21 Dec 2005
Posts: 858
WPP: 77
Location: Your loosing, lolololololololololol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 May 2006, 11:15pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Eats babies
Joined: 28 Feb 2006
Posts: 3884
WPP: 109
|
|
| Thanks Pyroxene, that goes deeper than I've heard it put before. I've kind of pieced a bit together, but that is more detail than just finding a table with a certain number attached for pre-flop raises or average pots which is not always listed on some sites. It actually points to the seat I should pick. I always went for the big stack on the right but thats where it ended for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 4:09am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
| Quote: | Rule #4 for Table Selection
Take a seat where the players to your left have very little money. Position, acting after other players, is very important in Texas Hold'em. If you want to know why this is, there are great articles here on FTR and in plenty of Poker Books. Again, for now, accept this principle. At a ten man table, you will be the last to act 10% of the time (being the Dealer, or the Button). Imagine playing at a table where the player to your left has 1 penny. Granted, he acts after you do. But his actions are trivial to you because he can only bring one penny into play. He cannot chase you out of a pot with a big bet. You would not mind calling his meaningless All-In, even if you had a speculative hand. At that table, you are effectively last to act when HE is the dealer because no one cares what he does. Sitting with a tiny stack to your left (or better yet two tiny stacks) makes you the last to act 20-30% of the time, instead of everyone elses 10%. There is another great thing about having small stacks to your left. We said above that money tends to flow to the players that have position. The players to your left have position on you but they have no money to bet. On any given hand, they can only get as much money from you as they have in their stack. As they have small stacks, not much of your money will be flowing to them because they cannot make you put a lot of money in the pot, even when they have an outstanding hand and you have a great one that is 2nd best. |
???????????????????????????
No, we want to AVOID short stacks on our left whenever possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 8:57am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 22 Apr 2005
Posts: 3173
WPP: 88
Location: Putney, UK; Full Tilt,Mansion; $50 NL and PL; $13 and $16 SNGs at Stars
|
|
| I think Lukie's got a point. Also, in your example where you say it's ideal to have two short stacks to your left - I disagree, as if they do choose to bet or push with their tiny wads, they will tempt other players to call these bets - psychologically, the opportunity to bust someone is ALWAYS more attractive than it should be. This is good if you're holding PPs or SCs - but not if you raised with AQ and suddenly find 5 callers, with you waiting impotently for them all to finish splashing the cash. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 9:21am Post subject:
|
|
|
Eats babies
Joined: 28 Feb 2006
Posts: 3884
WPP: 109
|
|
| See, this is what I'm talking about, I love it. There is no intermediate level in poker. It"s like you go from "19 hands" to a whole variety of beliefs and ideas. Is that the way it should be or does someone have an idea of where that middle step is between micro and 100NL. Is there a good way to go about being a 6 month intermediate level player at 25NL and 50 NL or is it all about playing hands and figuring it out? It's great biondino, to not only hear when someone thinks that somebody is wrong, but actualy says why. Lukie, you are one of the guys I try to read all of his ideas and theory's, s0me are just to far above for my poker level, but why?????(by the way, great thread of randomness, it really helps in the MTT's to have something else to read.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 1:16pm Post subject:
|
|
|
i rarely, if ever, get pms
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 4320
WPP: 178
|
|
| Lukie wrote: | | Quote: | Rule #4 for Table Selection
Take a seat where the players to your left have very little money. Position, acting after other players, is very important in Texas Hold'em. If you want to know why this is, there are great articles here on FTR and in plenty of Poker Books. Again, for now, accept this principle. At a ten man table, you will be the last to act 10% of the time (being the Dealer, or the Button). Imagine playing at a table where the player to your left has 1 penny. Granted, he acts after you do. But his actions are trivial to you because he can only bring one penny into play. He cannot chase you out of a pot with a big bet. You would not mind calling his meaningless All-In, even if you had a speculative hand. At that table, you are effectively last to act when HE is the dealer because no one cares what he does. Sitting with a tiny stack to your left (or better yet two tiny stacks) makes you the last to act 20-30% of the time, instead of everyone elses 10%. There is another great thing about having small stacks to your left. We said above that money tends to flow to the players that have position. The players to your left have position on you but they have no money to bet. On any given hand, they can only get as much money from you as they have in their stack. As they have small stacks, not much of your money will be flowing to them because they cannot make you put a lot of money in the pot, even when they have an outstanding hand and you have a great one that is 2nd best. |
???????????????????????????
No, we want to AVOID short stacks on our left whenever possible. |
Why do you want big stacks to your left?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 2:04pm Post subject:
|
|
|
11 OF DIAMONDS
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 4380
WPP: 117
Location: ISHPERMING MISHIGEN
|
|
| Why do we want small stacks anywhere at the table in ring? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 2:32pm Post subject:
|
|
|
i rarely, if ever, get pms
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 4320
WPP: 178
|
|
| givememyleg wrote: | | Why do we want small stacks anywhere at the table in ring? |
In general because it means they are a bad player and you have an even better chance of taking their money.
Although I realize you can't double up from them in NL they still should add to your overall profit. And in Limit - that is one of the first things I look for when I decide whether or not to sit at a table. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 2:42pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
Trainer,
we want to avoid short stacks on our left because it changes the whole dynamic of the game. Let me (attempt to) explain. First I'll try to explain preflop play because it's the simplest. Basically there are a lot of times where a play can be +EV when there are a lot of players with healthy stacks behind you, but that same play becomes -EV if there are short stacks behind you. Say you have a pair of 6's and it folds to you in the HJ (one to the right of the CO). If you are 100bb deep and everyone covers, the best play here is usually to raise.
Now, let's say, somebody has 40bb on the button. You raise. A call by him puts you in a tough spot on any board that doesn't have a 6. A reraise here puts you in an awful spot because you just have to fold, period.
Say it folds to your button and you have T9s. If the button/SB/BB trio is 100bb+ deep, this is a stupid easy raise and is most certainly +EV. Now say that the BB only has 30bb. All of a sudden your hand becomes complete and utter trash.
So basically you are put in situations where either:
a) You have to tighten your range, sacrificing both EV and deception against your deeper opponents.
or
b) Continue raising hands that are +EV vs deeper opponents, while being easily exploitable and putting yourself in -EV situations vs players with shorter stacks.
"Money flows clockwise around the table"
True. But I shudder when somebody follows this up with, "so naturally, you want people with lots of money to your right, and those without much money to your left."
Let me tell you something that I've noticed in my journey from NL25 to NL400. The solid, full stacked regulars don't give NEARLY as much action as the short stacked donks. Trust me.
I'm always sitting with a full stack. Are you going to sit down on my left? Sure, you can, but that is SUCH a waste. Why would you want position on a player like me??? No, sit down on the left of the short stack who gives way too much action. And you don't have to play your baby pairs or suited connectors in a raised pot with this opponent. All of a sudden your KQ type hands go way up in value. You won't be put in situations where you have JJ on a Q high, 2 tone flop, out of position, where you bet out and he pushes and you have to decide whether he has QJ or a 4-flush or whatever. Sit on my right and steal my blinds.
Now if me and somebody else are like 200bb deep and the rest of the table is shorter, I wouldn't want to give position to this guy. But I need to go so maybe we can go into more detail later.
edit: I had something else I wanted to say but I completely forgot. It was a pretty important point too. I think it had something to do with seat selection but I'm not sure. If I remember, I'll add to this. |
Last edited by Lukie on Wed, 31 May 2006, 2:48pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 2:43pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
| givememyleg wrote: | | Why do we want small stacks anywhere at the table in ring? |
Because a lot of them are terrible, donate their money to the table, and leave.
That said, short stacks have an inherent advantage over the rest of the table. But I've found there are very few 'short-stack specialists' out there that exploit this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 3:06pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
| Trainer_jyms wrote: | | See, this is what I'm talking about, I love it. There is no intermediate level in poker. It"s like you go from "19 hands" to a whole variety of beliefs and ideas. Is that the way it should be or does someone have an idea of where that middle step is between micro and 100NL. Is there a good way to go about being a 6 month intermediate level player at 25NL and 50 NL or is it all about playing hands and figuring it out? It's great biondino, to not only hear when someone thinks that somebody is wrong, but actualy says why. Lukie, you are one of the guys I try to read all of his ideas and theory's, s0me are just to far above for my poker level, but why?????(by the way, great thread of randomness, it really helps in the MTT's to have something else to read.) |
| Quote: | | Is there a good way to go about being a 6 month intermediate level player at 25NL and 50 NL |
stop settling for mediocrity and get better!
| Quote: | | or is it all about playing hands and figuring it out? |
I think this is the best way to make yourself a better player.
to be honest, 6 months ago I was restarting my poker career at NL25. I had read so much of FTR that a lot of the stuff was like 2nd nature. but as I've progressed, I've learned that much of all that knowledge I soaked in was either blatantly wrong or just held true in certain spots. I used to preach the 10:1 pp rule. I used to laugh at players that were FAR better then me whenever they didn't come over the top of a reraise when they held KK. The idea of ever folding a 2-card flush on an unpaired board was so foreign to me that it was beyond comprehension.
If i were you, I'd try to figure out the game for myself. Also, post some hands and ideas, but don't become dependant on the responses. Any board you go to, there's going to be bad advice. So learn who gives good advice and learn who gives bad advice, and learn from both of them. You might even see gabe and myself post different advice on the same hand. Of the two of us, he's undoubtedly a better player then myself, our styles are a bit different, but regardless, both of us are still going to give good advice. Bdawg is probably the most under-rated poster here and gives awesome advice. You should listen to what he says. If you're going to listen to Fnord, listen to his game theory, seat selection, game selection skills, when to gamble it up with bad players, and stuff like that. Don't listen to how much of a laggtastic gambler he is (BECAUSE HE ISN'T!!  )
Also I'm sure somebody will yell at me for this or whatever but leaving newbie land and never coming back would probably be the most +EV thing you ever did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 3:14pm Post subject:
|
|
|
i rarely, if ever, get pms
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 4320
WPP: 178
|
|
Good replies lukie thanks.
As far as getting nuts and bolts strategies - I also agree, the respective forums are where you should go. But I will always be here for my newbies, giving at least slightly helpful advice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 4:38pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 2759
WPP: 83
|
|
Basically, you want the guy(s) who are most likely to pay you off to sit to your right. Whether he's a Lagg, or a calling station, whether his stack is 500bb, 100bb or 50bb. The guys who are least likely to pay you off (the nits) can sit to your left. Again, however big their stacks may be.
Important note, if there are good Laggs or floaters at the table, those better not be on your left either or they'll ruin your stay at the table. If I find myself in such a situation, and no ATM-machine I have position on, I'll just leave the table.
In a vacuum though, you take the seat with the biggest stacks to your right and the smallest stacks to your left. This is your best bet, so to speak, if you don't know how anyone plays yet. It is blatantly wrong however to think this is the best seat at the table! I could give meriads of personal examples, but I think this should be obvious to anyone with a little bit of experience, no?
The optimum spot is when the guys with a high VP$IP sit to your right and the low VP$IP guys sit to your left. Ofcourse, you usually don't know this beforehand. But that's the 'winning seat'.
Btw, I really think some of the original article needs some work. For example the thing about a guy sitting on your left with 1 penny. I know this is an exaggeration to prove a point, but when you make the following conclusion
| Quote: | | At that table, you are effectively last to act when HE is the dealer because no one cares what he does |
then it's just nonsense. This has no bearing on a real game whatsoever, not even a newbie game. If you're sitting on 100bb and a 20bb shortie is on your left, people sure as hell care what he does and he has a big impact on the game! His pressure point is way lower than normal stacked guys, that's a big difference if he likes to play a fair amounts of pots with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 7:20pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 236
WPP: 263
|
|
| Lukie wrote: | ???????????????????????????
No, we want to AVOID short stacks on our left whenever possible. |
| jackvance wrote: | Btw, I really think some of the original article needs some work. For example the thing about a guy sitting on your left with 1 penny. I know this is an exaggeration to prove a point, but when you make the following conclusion
| Quote: | | At that table, you are effectively last to act when HE is the dealer because no one cares what he does |
then it's just nonsense. This has no bearing on a real game whatsoever, not even a newbie game. |
I would much rather have a short stack to my left than an average stack. I think I explained why I prefer short stacks, but I will give an example from today that illustrates my point.
I was playing 0.50/1.00 and I found a seat where the guy to my left had $7.35. My opening raise at a .5/1 table is going to be $4, so he could not even completely re-raise me. Whether you wished to believe it or not, no one cared what he did; he did not influence anyone's play. It allowed me to be the button twice an orbit for 72 wonderful hands. While I am normally a 11/7 nit, I took that opportunity to be far more aggressive than normal because I had the double button. That allowed me to destack a player with JJ with my AA when he just got tired of my button raises and decided his Jacks were good for All-In preflop.
But Lukie's points are noted and I will see how they might be worked into the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 7:29pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 311
WPP: 86
Location: Australia
|
|
| Lukie wrote: | | That said, short stacks have an inherent advantage over the rest of the table. |
Finally! I've been waiting to hear somebody say this... I've yet to see any posts explaining why short-stack specialists can make so much. I have a few ideas, but please Lukie... explain |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 8:04pm Post subject:
|
|
|
The Greatest American Hero
Joined: 04 Dec 2003
Posts: 5241
WPP: 91
Location: facebook.com/xianti
|
|
| Pyroxene wrote: | | ...I will see how they might be worked into the article. |
Let me or any of the Moderators know when you want to revise it so we can temporarily unlock it for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 8:59pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
| renegaderob1 wrote: | | Lukie wrote: | | That said, short stacks have an inherent advantage over the rest of the table. |
Finally! I've been waiting to hear somebody say this... I've yet to see any posts explaining why short-stack specialists can make so much. I have a few ideas, but please Lukie... explain |
Say there are 8 players in a game with 100bb stacks. Then a 9th sits down with 40bb. The 9th guy has a distinct and undeniable advantage over the rest of the table since the other 8 guys have 7 opponents playing 100bb deep and 1 thats playing 40bb deep. the 9th guy always has a 40bb effective stack in play. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 9:17pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 236
WPP: 95
Location: in a van by the river
|
|
| I know of a couple of people who short buy at 50NL that I always want on my left because they are like 8.5/3.5, but I think in general if you have no idea of how they play theyll just go all in like crazy and you don't want them on your left even though they do donate to the table |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 10:17pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 311
WPP: 86
Location: Australia
|
|
| Lukie wrote: | | renegaderob1 wrote: | | Lukie wrote: | | That said, short stacks have an inherent advantage over the rest of the table. |
Finally! I've been waiting to hear somebody say this... I've yet to see any posts explaining why short-stack specialists can make so much. I have a few ideas, but please Lukie... explain |
Say there are 8 players in a game with 100bb stacks. Then a 9th sits down with 40bb. The 9th guy has a distinct and undeniable advantage over the rest of the table since the other 8 guys have 7 opponents playing 100bb deep and 1 thats playing 40bb deep. the 9th guy always has a 40bb effective stack in play. |
Still not 100% sure what you mean here, but I think you are referring to the fact that things such fancy plays such as betting for draws, bluffs and implied odds are taken away/non existant against short stacks. Yay or Nay? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 May 2006, 11:38pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 2759
WPP: 83
|
|
@pyroxene: eh, the guy in your example has a 7bb stack.. that's like.. one preflop raise. That's kinda rare. Shorties that are 20bb-40bb is what I'm talking about. Those are a lot more common than a guy that's near-broke below the minimum buyin..
| theDEEPdish wrote: | | I know of a couple of people who short buy at 50NL that I always want on my left because they are like 8.5/3.5, but I think in general if you have no idea of how they play theyll just go all in like crazy and you don't want them on your left even though they do donate to the table |
Yeah, he's a nit, unusually low VP$IP, that's someone you want to your left. That makes you a free button on the CO. If shortie is very active however, that sucks.
| Quote: | | Still not 100% sure what you mean here, but I think you are referring to the fact that things such fancy plays such as betting for draws, bluffs and implied odds are taken away/non existant against short stacks. Yay or Nay? |
Dunno if I really agree with the premise that the shortie has the undeniable advantage, but the reason Lukie is going for, imo, would be the following: say you go into a pot with a 100bb and the 40bb shortie. You cannot make the 'best play' because that optimum play is dependant on the stack-size of your opponent. And their stacksizes both differ greatly. For example, a simple cbet in a raised pot towards the 100bb could be a decision to play for stacks towards the 40bb. The shortie however doesn't have that disadvantage. Everyone has him covered, so at any time he can make the best play and it'll be towards all his opponents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 01 Jun 2006, 9:17am Post subject:
|
|
|
Eats babies
Joined: 28 Feb 2006
Posts: 3884
WPP: 109
|
|
So this takes me back to another thread that I posted this week and never really got the answer I needed http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/forum/poker-36184.htm
If you can't get away from the short stack is there a way to play them optimally. Is it a matter of sitting away from them. I'm sure there is a way to effectively play against a short stack since I've heard of all the disadvantages. What is the best strategy for playing multiple short stacks at a table, every table. Is it a matter of putting there stack on the line consistantly (LAGG) even if you lose once in a while @ showdown. Can I just keep reloading and pounding so they know that if they enter the pot it'll be for stacks. Or do you buy in short as well and take em on with then a larger blind structure at 50BB of your stack and play TAGG. Right now I just play full stack TAGG and keep putting their stack on the line when I hit, no 3x-5x raises, just stacks. Variance is high but I'm not losing overall. (ie; 1 table down a buyin, 2 tables up 2 or 3 buyins) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 01 Jun 2006, 9:25am Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 311
WPP: 86
Location: Australia
|
|
| Trainer_jyms wrote: | So this takes me back to another thread that I posted this week and never really got the answer I needed http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/forum/poker-36184.htm
If you can't get away from the short stack is there a way to play them optimally. Is it a matter of sitting away from them. I'm sure there is a way to effectively play against a short stack since I've heard of all the disadvantages. What is the best strategy for playing multiple short stacks at a table, every table. Is it a matter of putting there stack on the line consistantly (LAGG) even if you lose once in a while @ showdown. Can I just keep reloading and pounding so they know that if they enter the pot it'll be for stacks. Or do you buy in short as well and take em on with then a larger blind structure at 50BB of your stack and play TAGG. Right now I just play full stack TAGG and keep putting their stack on the line when I hit, no 3x-5x raises, just stacks. Variance is high but I'm not losing overall. (ie; 1 table down a buyin, 2 tables up 2 or 3 buyins) |
Even though this may come back to bite me in the ass since I often play as short stack these days, check these two out for some tips on playing against short stacks (btw, i wouldn't suggest pounding them with money, cos that's what I want as a short stack; to play for stacks repeatedly until im up 5x my buy in, and i wouldn't suggest buying in short if you're not adept at playing short);
http://www.parttimepoker.com/poker-strategy-articles/03/no-limit-shortstackshorthanded.htm
http://www.parttimepoker.com/poker-strategy-articles/09/no-limit-vsshortstacks.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 01 Jun 2006, 10:02am Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 236
WPP: 263
|
|
| jackvance wrote: | | @pyroxene: eh, the guy in your example has a 7bb stack.. that's like.. one preflop raise. That's kinda rare. Shorties that are 20bb-40bb is what I'm talking about. |
I certainly do not find them that low at every table and I consider it more important to have position on people with money than to have a tiny stack to my left. But you can find these tiny stacks, particularly at Noble Poker where a lot of people buy in for the minimum 20BB only to lose 10BB in some donk play. Then they tighten up with the remaining 10BB or less. In my opinion, these are great players to have on your left. Tiny stacks, playing as tight as they can. They make no moves on you, and even if they finally do make a move, they cannot put more than 10BB pressure on you and likely cannot give you worse than 3:1 odds to call them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 01 Jun 2006, 10:10am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 2759
WPP: 83
|
|
| Pyroxene wrote: | | I certainly do not find them that low at every table and I consider it more important to have position on people with money than to have a tiny stack to my left. But you can find these tiny stacks, particularly at Noble Poker where a lot of people buy in for the minimum 20BB only to lose 10BB in some donk play. Then they tighten up with the remaining 10BB or less. In my opinion, these are great players to have on your left. Tiny stacks, playing as tight as they can. They make no moves on you, and even if they finally do make a move, they cannot put more than 10BB pressure on you and likely cannot give you worse than 3:1 odds to call them. |
Well there we get back to the essence: you have someone sitting to your left who plays like a nit! This is the point I am trying to make.. that is more important than their stack size (unless ofcourse their stack is the size of a PFR). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 01 Jun 2006, 10:39am Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight Flush
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 7939
WPP: 71
Location: Marry Me Cheryl!!!
|
|
isnt the general rule to have the loose idiots acting before you and the tighties behind you, with only some consideration to stack sizes?
Thats certainly true in lhe and id find a few arguements for it in NL too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 01 Jun 2006, 3:16pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 236
WPP: 263
|
|
| jackvance wrote: | | Well there we get back to the essence: you have someone sitting to your left who plays like a nit! This is the point I am trying to make.. that is more important than their stack size (unless ofcourse their stack is the size of a PFR). |
I guess I do not understand where you are coming from with your comments. IMO, table selection is about finding tables where the players are worse than you and trying to sit relative to players with certain amounts of money and certain playing habits. IMO, having a tight playing, tiny stacked nit to the left is a great thing. I feel your comments are saying that is invalid or unrealistic because such a player would be a bad player. I agree that they are a bad player; and they are the exactly the type of bad player I want on my left and I find them with some regularity. I estimate 1/5 to 1/3 of the tables I play, I have just such a bad player to my left. As I mentioned, it is not my top criteria, I want loose money on my right more. But if I can have both, I go for both.
If you are saying that the amount of money they have is unimportant, I disagree. Them having little money completely eliminates the chance of you making a big mistake with regards to someone who is yet to act. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 01 Jun 2006, 5:58pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 236
WPP: 263
|
|
| Pyroxene wrote: | | If you are saying that the amount of money they have is unimportant, I disagree. Them having little money completely eliminates the chance of you making a big mistake with regards to someone who is yet to act. |
For anyone still following this thread, I wanted to quantify what I mean by the above; maybe it will help explain why I like the tiny stack behind me.
The Table
In my real life example above, komodo1 had just over 7BB. I will happily bump him up to 10BB for my example; and I'll call him Sam.
The Hand
Sam is on the button and, thus, I am in the CO. I have AQos which is the worst hand that I will still raise against limpers. An EP player limps in who I have noted limps in with crap often. It folds to me and I raise it to 4BB (my standard raise). Suddenly Sam goes All-In with his 10BB and the action folds back around to me.
What to do, what to do?
IMO, Poker is about making good (profitable) choices and influencing your opponents to make bad (costly) choices. But Sam cannot get me to make a bad choice here. Because calling his All-In is profitable.
Really?
The pot is 16.5 BB and I need to invest 6BB to call giving me 2.75:1 odds. Thanks Pyro, so what?
If Sam has JJ (or lower pairs) then this is a 43.8:56.2 call producing an EV of +3.86BB.
If Sam has QQ then this is a 31.3:68.7 call producing an EV of +1.04BB.
If Sam has KK then this is a 29.1:70.9 call producing an EV of +0.55BB (yes, a call against pocket kings is net positive).
If Sam has AKos then this is a 26.4:73.6 call producing an EV of -0.06BB.
If Sam has AA then this is a 8.6:91.4 call producing an EV of -4.07BB.
If we assume his All-In range is JJ+,AKos then it is a 29.1:70.9 call producing an EV of +0.55BB.
So, it is a net +EV call on the range with a worst case of only -4.07BB EV... pffffft.
And, to be complete, if I had AKos instead of AQos then it would be a EV of +3.11 call with a worst case of only -4.16BB EV.
This is why I like the tiny stacks to the left. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 02 Jun 2006, 3:41am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 2759
WPP: 83
|
|
| Pyroxene wrote: | | I feel your comments are saying that is invalid or unrealistic because such a player would be a bad player. |
Hm, maybe I didn't explain it properly, b/c I wasn't trying to say something like that. The point was that you want the people on your left to be nits and the people on your right to be loose. Now if the nit on your left 300bb or a shortstack, doesn't really matter. Ofcourse I rather have a 200bb loose player to my right, but if I can choose between a 200bb nit or a 40bb loose shortie, then the shortie is probably the one who is going to be paying you off a lot more easily than the nit.
This is all from my personal experience btw. I used to sit down according to stack sizes - but I simply noticed after a while that having the loose people who play a lot of pots with you (whether they preflop raise a lot or are calling stations) on your right were the tables I made the quickest profit. Take the situation where to your right is a 500bb guy and to your left is a 100bb guy. Looks pretty good, but in practice if the 500bb guy is a total nit and the 100bb keeps entering pots with you, you'd have been better off if they were reversed.
Hope that explains it better what I mean. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun, 21 Dec 2008, 6:29pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Two Pair
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 35
WPP: 125
|
|
This is a very good beginning article teaches then position and were to put the loose players and the nit it also teaches them about the money flow threoy that money flows down hill .
The truth is told about the skill level of your table too you always want to sit at tables were you know your opp's next move on certain hands and flop textures.
Awsome post all and all keep it up and keep them coming |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 24th: FTR $100 Freeroll @ Sportsbook Poker at 8pm ET
