A Question on Table Selection

Which B&M table would you rather play at (and why)?

1. A lot of blind chopping (3 in a row at 1 point). However, you have position on 3-4 players who play piss poor after the flop, and will usually defend their blinds to the death. On your left are 2 Taggs.

2. Very few chops. 3-4 fishy players, 3-4 decent players including a Lag and a fairly good player who loves to 3-bet the Lag (2 seats to Lag's right). You have position on all the players you consider dangerous, the fish have position on you. An additional consideration is that the Lag loves to raise your blinds (but these pots will usually be multi-way).

Hey, they are both great tables. From your info, I prefer table 2 ... you have position on the good players which is good, and the fish after you means cold calls on your value raises preflop. Overall, what you really want at the casino (online too) is a table full of loose passive players. This gives you great odds preflop on your hands, and they call you down on your medium-strong hands without making you pay for your draws.

Overall, what you really want at the casino (online too) is a table full of loose passive players

Agreed. No shortage of those guys at the B&M . Unfortunately, there were only 3 tables (for my limit) to choose from. I didn't have the opportunity to scout the 3rd table. Aside from having good position at table 2, was there anything else that made you choose table 1? From the points you made, I am guessing that winning the occasional medium-big pot is more profitable than winning more small heads-up/3-way pots?

First, it is definitely better at the casino to take down a few big pots than a lot of small ones. The reason is simple ... fewer pots, fewer tips, and bigger pot, smaller percentage raked ... you win 3 $40 pots with $4 raked out of each, $1 dropped for the jackpot, and a $1 tip ... that's $18 compared to only $6 if you win a single $120 pot. Makes it a pretty sweet table when it's got lotsa maniacs and you camp out for some huge pots.

Both of the tables you mentioned have their advantages and disadvantages. They are both good tables because they both have enough bad players. It's usually better to have position on the better players. These are the players who are more likely to raise when they are supposed to, and are more likely to be more selective of starting hands ... knowing their action first is very valuable. Having loose players to your right can be nice, because you will have a better idea of how many people will be in the pot ... but I would rather guess at the loose players and know what the good players are doing.

2 exceptions to wanting to have tighter/more aggressive players to your right, and looser/more passive players on your left:
The maniac ... if you can sit immediately to his right, do so. You don't care about information as much as using him for a tool to get more money in the pot when you have a good hand. This guy always bets, so when you flop a good hand, check it to him, he will bet, and everyone gets a chance to call before you pop a raise and they all call that too. This is much better than having the maniac to your right ... then if you want to raise after he bets, you are forcing everyone to cold call 2.
The passive rock ... He's tight, and you would like to know whether he's in or not before you play, but having them to your left is good, because they play so tightly and raise so seldomly that it is usually better to have position on almost anyone else.

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Xanadu. Especially the part about using the maniac to build pots. They are a very rare breed in the local B&M, but I can see how having one of them to my left can make a good session great.

In Limit, Table 1 every time. You raise to isolate the fish and blind steal from the tight TAGS, who you have position on. When the fish have position on you, you can still value bet and get cold calls, bad calls, etc., but I find it REALLY hard not to tilt the third time some moron calls me with A,8o over my K,K and hits his aces on the flop.