Table Selection vs. Winrate/100 vs. Winrate/hr

[adamstewart]

I was just thinking about something:

We all know that table selection is a very important part of being successful in poker.

I've seen a number of posters who execute great table selection, and their winrates (in BB/100) benefit from it.

However, table selection is proportional to time and effort spent on it. Accordingly, someone who spends a lot of time hounding different players, analyzing table stats, constantly switching in and out of games, etc, must be playing less hands per *hour*, and therefore is hindering their winrate in terms of "BB/hour."

Ultimately, I think BB/Hour is the more important statisitc for most of us. (It is for me, at least).

In conclusion, there must be some balance.

Please discuss.


Adam

[TripleH68]

For the sake of propulsion...

I have a very simple approach. I keep a list of players to avoid. Also a short list of the extremely poor players. The better players are easier to find. I believe Ed Miller said the quickest way to find out if your game is good is to notice how many people are cold-calling raises. This gets me in and out of games well FWIW.

I am sure other more astute players have much more to say. The stage is yours...

[lu_hawk]

it rarely takes more than 5 minutes to get 8 decent 3/6 tables so i don't see that affecting hourly win rate. if you're switching in and out of tables once you get them set up initially then maybe it does.

[adamstewart]

.