|
A question about the number of players at your table.
I wondered if anybody had any views about the number of players they like to have at their table.
I often choose to play at a table with about 3 or 4 other players.
I seem to have the idea that I need to establish myself at the table and I want the players to regard me as a strong player or one to be wary of. This takes some time - and I feel it's done in a shorter time at tables such as this than it's done at tables with say 6- to 9 players.
I know some players like to pick a full table. Is it more advisable to pick a full table? -simply because there is more money down?
Am I doing myself out of cash at the small table because I'm paying more blinds than I would at the fuller table?
I feel a lot more confident at a table when I've played a few good hands and won a few hands.
I'd like to maybe win some hands by slow playing well or setting a trap with the nuts.
In time the players get to know something about you. They remember what you did. They can become wary of you and this makes it far easier to win pots or steal blinds with less strong hands.
I feel more assured at smaller table numbers that they have noticed my play. Once they have seen that , say, I'm likely to re-raise big on, say QQ preflop, it makes it easier to do the same on lesser hands.
It feels to me a problem at multitable tourneys when you are repeatedly moved to new rooms. You work hard trying to get your 'reputation' only to be moved tables and have to do it all again.
I feel it's an important part of my game-not just what I can work out about how they think , but to make them thoughful of me.
(did that make sense??)
I think this is the reason why I choose tables of 3 0r 4 players most often.
It's easier there to try and establish a reputation.
Does anybody else have any views on this? What do you prefer?
7LETTERS
|