What if you were the greatest...

[Benman]

...most talented hold'em player in the world. I know it's hard to quantify, but lets just say you were the best. In every respect. Question is, how important would table selection be to you? You know you by definition are better than everyone at every table you play at. Would you care about picking what table to play, assuming you had the bankroll? Just wondering.

[Dov]

Not to a large degree, no I wouldn't care.

[Rah]

I'd rather have an EV of 5 bb/100 against complete idiots than an EV of 0.1 bb/100 against a bunch of pros. Pretty obvious isn't it?

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather have an EV of 5 bb/100 against complete idiots than an EV of 0.1 bb/100 against a bunch of pros. Pretty obvious isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

if the idiots are playing $1/2 and the pros are playing $50/100 is it just as obvious?

[Zetack]

All other things being equal, even if you were the best player in the world sitting down at a table with the next nine of the top ten best players in the world would be a foolish choice if other games of sizable stakes were available.

One reason you often hear about games with a number of top level players is that there aren't very many huge stakes games going--a small relative win in very big stakes game may be more profitable than a much better relative win in a much smaller stakes game. Also, top players often have huge egos.

--Zetack

Edit: Actually I don't personally know any top level players so the bit about huge egos is just an assumption on my part.