|
inƒamous
|
01-27-2009, 02:19 AM
Post subject: Table selection help
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 62
|
|
What are some good things people look for when table selecting?. When I play at nano stakes I play a few tables. This sometimes limits my table selection a little. And when selecting tables I mainly look for high % of players per flop. I try to pick tables within the range of %35 or more the high the better. What are some other good things to be looking for? Or better yet what things should be more important to be looking for. Also can we discuss these things based of a range of tables one could be playing. Example 2-4, 8-12, 18-24. Thanks in advance for any and all input.
Jason
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Im_new
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,055
|
|
I generally go for the higher players/flop most often. And then I look for the largest average pot size. Other than that, I don't pick much. I do leave tables often, once they become dry and nitty. When I'm 12 tabling, its hard to notice things like that, but I've acquired the skill over time.
Oh, and one last thing. If there is a laggy to my right, I'm staying at that table as long as he keeps refreshing his stack.  .... 3bet all day long
|
"Gotta run well eventually."
|
|
kb coolman
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 596
|
|
I always look at % players per flop, with a minimum average pot of 10xBB ($1 at $10NL). Other than that, I try not to sit down left of a shortie unless there's a full stack one to his left. You never can tell if these guys are nut campers or just complete donks.
Other than that, if specific players are giving me problems, I'll do one of two things. I either leave the table, or shut down others so I can concentrate on him for a while. Sometimes I may think he's really nitty, but his line is throwing me off, or he may be hyper aggressive and I need to pay close attention so I can get his stack at some point.
|
|
|
|
Ragnar4
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Billings, Montana
Posts: 1,284
|
|
Infamous!!!
It's good to see you made it. I figgured you were just gonna be like "pssh whatev"
Anyway. If you organize players by descending (players to the table 9's on top) THEN right click on the "Players" tab. It'll bring up a multifilter function that is pure balla. Organize Players by descending, then players to the flop by descending, then average pot by descending." The top tables at each seating level have the most donks.
|
The older I get, the more I start wondering; Just what in the hell is going on here? 
|
|
xX zorrito Xx
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wellington, FL
Posts: 300
|
|
welcome to the forums infamous...
great to see you here...
i generally look for my ATMs and dime dispensers (hopefully getting some quarter dispensers soon)
if they're not around then i look for large players per flop... obviously you wanna play against loose aggressive players cause they're the easiest to handle...
i've managed to adjust my play to play against tight passive players as well... they are almost just as profitable as loose aggressive players in the long run...
personally i have trouble when i'm up against another tight aggressive player cause at that point it starts to become less about what you're holding or what he's holding and more about who's got the biggest set of balls and who blinks first if you know what i mean...
i use my HUD a lot too...
once i see that the table has way too many tight passive players and tight aggressive players then i switch...
|
|
|
|
Keith
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,336
|
|
there are posts in the poker strategy section on table selection and Jyms has done a video on it.look in the left hand sidebar and its under the poker tools bit. Spenda's 5NL video also had a bit where he said what he looks for in seat position.
|
|
|
|
Micro2Macro
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: http://three-pair.com/
Posts: 4,463
|
|
I like getting position on player(s) I have covered. Nits to the left is good since you can steal their blinds all day, and having a loose passive player on your right is great for isolating.
I don't really rely on pot size and hands per hour, that stuff changes in a matter of minutes. Tables break, fish come and go, the whole dynamics of the tables never seem to reflect the stats given by the site for very long. And if I see a table with 2 or more TAG reg's I'll pass.
BTW if your sitting at a table with 2+ TAG reg's at these stakes go find another table. There are way better spots. If you must have the good TAG at your table sitting across from him is the best option.
|
|
|
|
Outlaw
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,033
|
|
Definately look for a good mix of players per flop and pot size. Also, if I sit down and it folds to my BB on the first hand I play.. I generally sit out next BB, unless things are proven otherwise by then.
|
|
|
|
AFchung
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UCLA
Posts: 1,179
|
|
i usually look for biggest pot size, don't care too much of players per flop
also, i make sure that I'm seated to a 100+ BB player on my right and a shortstacker on my left
|
|
|
|
Sir Pawnalot
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 668
|
|
Regulars fear me so much nowadays that all good players leave my tables. That leaves me and the fish. Only drawback with that is that those players I have developed extensive reads on leaves.
But it is very satisfactory to see a player you have previously tagged as a shark leave in fear of you.
Against unknown villains I prefer huge pots (40BB) and VPIP 45% or more. I play mostly 6 max because it rewards skill more than fullring. Fullring is a test of patience in my opinion, because the blinds does not really matter.
Table selection is crucial to maximize your winnings. Still, I think it is very good exercise to play under different table conditions. That allows you to practice adjustment against a variety of players.
Master all playing styles and developing effective counter strategies to all playing styles enables you to play any table profitable.
Trouble is when you play against players that are doing the same. Then we need to think on a deeper level- but only one level deeper. You see, if we think two levels deeper than opponents we will make mistakes.
Let us say that villain is a level 2 thinker: he reacts to your perceived hand strength. We think on level 4- reacting to villains 3 level (what he thinks we think he got) adjustment. But because villain is not considering what we think about his hand- we must drop down to level 3. Then we can react upon his reactions to our perceived hand strength.
In short- we assess which level villain is thinking on and think one level deeper- not two.
|
|
A foolish man learns nothing from his mistakes.
A smart man learns only from his own mistakes.
A wise man learns from his own mistakes, and those of the smart man and the fool.
|
|
Monty3038
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 788
|
|
I'll be honest...at this point table selection is minimal. I seem to sign on at times where there are few tables available, I just jump on them and adjust my play accordingly.
|
|
|
|
inƒamous
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 62
|
|
Cool thanks for all the helpfull info. And thanks for the link.
Hi Ragnar no im all about checking anything out or trying something new that could possibly help me. I need all the help I can get.
Also how many people here mutli table? And how does that effect your table selection?
|
|
|
|
oskar
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
Posts: 2,452
|
|
I don't think it matters much at 2NL... I like to sit down at either an open table, or one that isn't filled yet. You can get people HU who are not used to playing HU, and that's awesome. If you suck at short handed play, then that's obviously not so great.
I think I get a higher donk:grinder ratio that way, but that's just speculation.
|
|
|
|
Erpel
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 605
|
|
My table selection goes as follows:
Filter only for the type of table I want to play. Currently this is 10nl, 6max, not fast tables (I want 30 seconds for my decisions as opposed to 15), not full tables (no seats right now)
Order by saw flop %. Any table with more than 30% saw flop warrants consideration, I start looking at the top % first.
Typically I disregard tables with just 2 or 3 players, but I don't filter them out because sometimes you can spot a fish there and it's even easier getting their money when the table is shorthanded.
The second thing I look at is the STACKS. If there is no money to be won at the table I don't care how loose they all are. I prefer sitting down at a table where everyone has 100bb or more, but typically I have to settle for 3-4 out of 5 having a full stack.
I open up a promising table and check which seat is available. I probably reserve it and look around a bit. If I have position on the only short stack and I have stats on several opponents and know they are nitty I might just leave again. I ask myself the question - will they be dropping their money in my lap - if no, I seriously consider leaving.
I rarely ever consider the average pot size. The number is an average over a set number of recent hands. That number is probably in the area of 20 hands, and average pot size is skewed heavily by variance. If people have been getting good cards it will be high.
Also there is this: The bigger the average pot size, the higher the chance that the average pot size is big because someone just lost a huge pot and left the table - it's his seat that's available. Good players tend only to get into big pots that they stand a good chance of winning, whereas poor players tend to get into more big pots that they lose. This again increases the likelihood that the guy who just busted out was the biggest fish at the table.
I don't count a big average pot size against a table - I do still consider it a small plus. But I don't really consider it much of one.
It's much more important imo to get to a table with big stacks, hit sets and get paid as they say.
|
|
|
|
Monty3038
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 788
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Erpel
My table selection goes as follows:
Filter only for the type of table I want to play. Currently this is 10nl, 6max, not fast tables (I want 30 seconds for my decisions as opposed to 15), not full tables (no seats right now)
Order by saw flop %. Any table with more than 30% saw flop warrants consideration, I start looking at the top % first.
Typically I disregard tables with just 2 or 3 players, but I don't filter them out because sometimes you can spot a fish there and it's even easier getting their money when the table is shorthanded.
The second thing I look at is the STACKS. If there is no money to be won at the table I don't care how loose they all are. I prefer sitting down at a table where everyone has 100bb or more, but typically I have to settle for 3-4 out of 5 having a full stack.
I open up a promising table and check which seat is available. I probably reserve it and look around a bit. If I have position on the only short stack and I have stats on several opponents and know they are nitty I might just leave again. I ask myself the question - will they be dropping their money in my lap - if no, I seriously consider leaving.
I rarely ever consider the average pot size. The number is an average over a set number of recent hands. That number is probably in the area of 20 hands, and average pot size is skewed heavily by variance. If people have been getting good cards it will be high.
Also there is this: The bigger the average pot size, the higher the chance that the average pot size is big because someone just lost a huge pot and left the table - it's his seat that's available. Good players tend only to get into big pots that they stand a good chance of winning, whereas poor players tend to get into more big pots that they lose. This again increases the likelihood that the guy who just busted out was the biggest fish at the table.
I don't count a big average pot size against a table - I do still consider it a small plus. But I don't really consider it much of one.
It's much more important imo to get to a table with big stacks, hit sets and get paid as they say.
|
Good analysis and points... I may have to start paying more attention to selection.
|
|
|
|
poker_pup
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 130
|
|
My table selection is a little counter intuitive. I look for tables with low average pot sizes. I also look for tables where no one has significantly more than a full stack. What I'm looking for here is a passive table full of losers. I do this because I really suck and I need to find players who suck worse.
Most of the good players are looking for big pots and big stacks. I avoid good players by looking for tables that good players avoid.
|
|
|
|
Keith
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,336
|
|
had my best session yet tonight . Got on a table with the two guys i had position on ,The one got up to 250BB during the session and played 67/9 over 43 hands , the other with 120 BB played 94/3 over 34 hands. Players with position on me both thad 200 BB stacks and were 14/3 and 16/11
Finished the session stacking the two fish and up almost two buyins.If you can get the right seat with the fish on your right and tighter players on your left it can be very profitable.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
