How many BB/100 is game selection worth?

[7ontheline]

Currently playing Party 5/10 and I have an unsustainable winrate over ny first 6k hands (thankfully, it's a green number for BB/100). Anyway, I feel (perhaps undeservedly) confident that I am a winning player considering the level of play I see, but I haven't come anywhere close to statistical significance.

In any case, my question is how much do people think proper game selection adds to your BB/100? I have really made an effort to pay attention to this and it seems to have been well worth it. I leave tables full of TAGs and I follow my favorite donktastic fishes around. Due to having a regular job, I end up playing only at prime hours in the evening, particularly on weekends. Do you think it's worth a whole BB/100 simply to always play against the worst competition possible? More? Less?

P.S. Apologies if this topic has been discussed to death previously - I'm too lazy to search right now. I'd rather just have my info spoon-fed to me by smarter posters.

[KnickNut3]

Obviously, if you leave a table of 2+2ers to a table of the fishiest fish, you could easily go from -5 to +5BB/100 in expectation. I'd estimate that just an average "leave if it gets tight, stay if it's fishy" strategy provides about 1-2BB/100, though. Just a guess.

[ctv1116]

Yes. Table selection is very important, and often is the difference between a winning and a losing player. If you want a number, I'll throw out 3BB/100 between the worst table at Party 5/10 6max and the best. Obviously this number is dependent on how good you yourself are.

[Transference]

I've been pondering this as well. I couldnt attempt to put a number on it but I do feel its tremendous. It's worth note that this clearly varies in direct relation to your ability to adapt your game to the table. For this reason I think the number would be more significant for those who play fewer tables simultaneously, i.e. are able to get reads beyond pokertracker numbers.

In any cause I think the +EV from finding the most profitable tables definately suprasses the -EV from time lost closing tables/looking for new ones/waiting for blinds.

[sweetjazz]

I play lower limits (2/4 full currently), but I am in a similar situtation regarding my playing schedule, primarily playing late night when there are a lot of bad players online.

I find that I make a lot of money by being able to frequently sit at a table when a player is playing way too overaggressive, often maniacal. I have learned how to adjust my play to this situation (and am still learning!). The overaggressive player almost always burns through the $100-$300 he has at the table. I am able to get a nice profit by observing how much of a chance I have to isolate this guy and how much of a chance of I have to build a big pot with my premium hands by getting into a raising war with the maniac while weak passive players call each raise.

There are so many errors being made by opponents that:
(1) I can make way more at a table like this than I could at a table of halfway decent players, even if I had extensive knowledge of their betting habits
(2) I can make a huge profit even if I occassionally make some mistakes. (Not that I use this as an excuse to keep making the same mistakes -- but it's allowed me to experiment a bit and learn quite a bit while still profitting tremendously.)

Yes, the variance is significantly higher, but so is the EV of playing at the table. This makes a huge downswing pretty unlikely, provided that you are doing a reasonably good job of adjusting to table conditions.

(I also regularly find games with horrible loose passive players, who are also quite profitable. I tend to like playing against uberLAGs or maniacs more because often the otherwise marginal players who play more or less tight preflop and according to simplistic rules postflop can be exploited quite a bit more in this type of game.)

Like the other posters, I can't quantify how important game selection is. But, once you know the basics of poker and can implement the ideas in Small Stakes Hold 'Em fairly well (when appropriate), game selection is by far the most important skill needed to maximize earnings.

I don't know where the donks keep getting their money to play poker. I only know where their money goes as long as they keep playing.

[ctv1116]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know where the donks keep getting their money to play poker. I only know where their money goes as long as they keep playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was playing yesterday and there was an argument about a player berating a fish, and the one of the players made the following statement, paraphrased:

Fish: I don't mind losing 1K a week, so long as I'm having fun.

So there's your answer.

[7ontheline]

[ QUOTE ]
Fish: I don't mind losing 1K a week, so long as I'm having fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish $50K was absolutely nothing to me. . .

Anyway, I feel like game selection has become even more important since I started at shorthanded tables. 1-2 bad players at a 6 max table can really make your night. Conversely, 1-2 solid TAGs can ruin a table if everyone else isn't horrible. When I played 3/6 full, I would follow certain players around also, but with so many people at a table it was harder to take their money. Also, it was harder to be in good position relative to them, whereas in SH even a guy a couple seats to your left you will have position on at least 1/3 of the time.

[mike l.]

"In any case, my question is how much do people think proper game selection adds to your BB/100?"

a lot. a famous poster from here reminded me last year "hey you know the only reason youre beating these games [he was referring to the 100-200 at commerce] is because your opponents suck right?" i replied "well isnt that really the whole point?" he then went on to tell me how he is into testing himself by playing in really big online games against really tough players. whatever.

im big on playing against bad players. that's where the money is.

[Victor]

i just go to the first available table with the largest pot on party. thats table selection i suppose but really all the games on party are good.

likewise all live games i have ever played in up to 30-60 have been good.

so, while i dont think table selection (in and of itself) is overrated, i do think that the effort often put into is unnecessary.

[tolbiny]

"In any case, my question is how much do people think proper game selection adds to your BB/100?"

a lot.

----------------------------


Mike are you using game selection in the mircro sense of picking individual tables with bad players, or in the macro sense of playing a game that is populated by tons of bad players?

[mike l.]

"Mike are you using game selection in the mircro sense of picking individual tables with bad players, or in the macro sense of playing a game that is populated by tons of bad players?"

both.

[SmileyEH]

Its all a matter of risk/reward. Playing 2/4 full I used almost no game selection, this allowed me to keep my multi-tabling ratio around 7. If I had sat at only the juiciest tables I could probably only be playing hands at 5-6 tables on average (however you define juicy). I felt the extra hands played at mediocre tables more than made up for the higher overall quality of my opposition.

However, at 5/10 6max or something there are certainly tables where no number of hands could make it worth my while to sit - I'd be hardly +EV against a linup of TAG's and thinking LAGs, in that instance table selection is paramount.

-SmileyEH

[Michael Davis]

Table selection is worth a negative number if you are multitabling more than four.

-Michael

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
Table selection is worth a negative number if you are multitabling more than four.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

i find there's plenty of time for table selection while 4-tabling, and i doubt it would be -EV while 6+ tabling to leave tables where the tag/fish ratio is too high and open up new ones. this is one of the biggest advantages of playerview (and i assume gametime, though i've never used it myself).