Table selection related to Irieguys post

[apd138]

Irieguy stated that he had to skip several $33's becuase they had too many pros. My question is how many pros at a table is too many? Lets assume most of the players who you don't consider dangerous are unknown party players.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
Irieguy stated that he had to skip several $33's becuase they had too many pros. My question is how many pros at a table is too many? Lets assume most of the players who you don't consider dangerous are unknown party players.

[/ QUOTE ]

3 is too many (not including you)

But every pro on your table hurts a little bit, just play the best games you can without hurting your $/hour too much.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Irieguy stated that he had to skip several $33's becuase they had too many pros. My question is how many pros at a table is too many? Lets assume most of the players who you don't consider dangerous are unknown party players.

[/ QUOTE ]


3 is too many (not including you)

But every pro on your table hurts a little bit, just play the best games you can without hurting your $/hour too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in my opinion, it's a little more complicated than that.

If a player is a pro, and I know that, I don't mind sitting to their right as long as they don't know me (which is sometimes possible since I play under several different accounts.)

If they do know me, I don't mind sitting to their immediate left if I think I rate to know how to counter their adjustment to me better than they can adjust to me (if that makes sense.)

In both of these situations I feel that I am better off than I would be playing against a random player.

So, if I can't position myself appropriately relative to the pro, I may pass on a table due to a single other player.

On the other hand, there are some players who are very good with their non-exploitable game, but don't know or don't care how to adjust to the exploitable tendancies of others. With these players, I don't need to worry about my position, and their predictability comes in very handy on the bubble... allowing me to adjust my play greatly because I know exactly what they will be doing.

Lastly, if the player is both experienced AND good I would just avoid him all together no matter what. Fortunately, a lot of the best SNG players right now are young and do not have enough experience or flexibility in their game to be able to exploit the adjustments that I think I could make against them. They've never needed to be able to do this because they can just play tic-tac-toe for $100/hr. I don't mind playing at the same table with these players, especially if I know they are playing 6 or more tables. A player like Daliman, however, would be a different story. He has enough experience to be able to make adjustments not only within a SNG, but within a particular hand based on how he thought I may be thinking that he would be playing.

But the bottom line is the zero-sum nature of a SNG. If a player is a 40% ITMer, you don't want to be at that table if you can help it unless there's reason to believe that he will change his game in such a way vs. you that he becomes worse than a 40% ITMer.... or if you could use his non-exploitable play as a weapon by proxy to help extract additional dollars from poor playing opponents(a topic perhaps worthy of its own thread some day.)

Irieguy

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]


If a player is a pro, and I know that, I don't mind sitting to their right as long as they don't know me . . .
If they do know me, I don't mind sitting to their immediate left if I think I rate to know how to counter their adjustment to me better than they can adjust to me (if that makes sense.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it that in one case you prefer to be acting predominantly behind the other person, and in the other case to have them generally acting behind you? Most of the time I like to sit as close as possible to the immediate left of players I respect so that I have position on them most of the time. I suppose it can make BB play slightly more painful, but that depends on the player; against players I considered tight immediate left would probably be a bonus there, too.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


If a player is a pro, and I know that, I don't mind sitting to their right as long as they don't know me . . .
If they do know me, I don't mind sitting to their immediate left if I think I rate to know how to counter their adjustment to me better than they can adjust to me (if that makes sense.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it that in one case you prefer to be acting predominantly behind the other person, and in the other case to have them generally acting behind you? Most of the time I like to sit as close as possible to the immediate left of players I respect so that I have position on them most of the time. I suppose it can make BB play slightly more painful, but that depends on the player; against players I considered tight immediate left would probably be a bonus there, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is a battle for the blinds.

Irieguy

[gumpzilla]

Well, yes, but you can still battle for the blinds even when you haven't posted them. Your opponent to your left is going to have a positional advantage on you on any hand you both play where you're not the button, and is going to probably be more inclined to defend his BB than Joe Random, which I'm guessing is probably not what you want (but perhaps I'm wrong). So it's not clear to me what you gain by sitting to his right.

[Elektrik]

[ QUOTE ]
If they do know me, I don't mind sitting to their immediate left if I think I rate to know how to counter their adjustment to me better than they can adjust to me (if that makes sense.)

In both of these situations I feel that I am better off than I would be playing against a random player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gotta admit Irie, I'm not understanding why you'd ever want to sit to my left, OR how you'd be better off with me there than against a random player.

[johnny005]

I have a question about table selection.
I play the 20's right now 4 tabling, should I be using table selection here. from what i've noticed the tables fill up way to quick to even think about it let alone actually try and look up the players on PT prophecy.
So the question for everyone is, What methods do you use for table selection? Do you keep notes on all players while you are playing, I find it a bit hard to do while 4 tabling, but I think I might start scince I can see it will help me if I'm running across the same players.

[Freudian]

The most practical way is to only add notes to good players. That way you will see the little icon in the bottom left corner by their name when you sit down. Too many icons and you might want to skip that game.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
The most practical way is to only add notes to good players. That way you will see the little icon in the bottom left corner by their name when you sit down. Too many icons and you might want to skip that game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey that's a damn good idea!

[johnny005]

yeah i was thinking that too!! very good idea. I'm going to start that tommorow first thing, thanks

[johnny005]

are there any other methods that anyone is using for their table selection? This post will help us all I think? We will be able to stay away from other 2+2ers

[BDarch]

yea now that I'm consistently playing the 20's and 30's I would like some method to try and avoid people I know would be tough competition but don't really know how to go about it.

[Apathy]

This is a fantastic post where you don't really give away anything, I like that, lots to think about though.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, in my opinion, it's a little more complicated than that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was just giving a hasty answer that I thought would be enough for the OP, but I'm glad you elaborated

[ QUOTE ]
If a player is a pro, and I know that, I don't mind sitting to their right as long as they don't know me (which is sometimes possible since I play under several different accounts.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I have always done this. Even if they do know me a little.

[ QUOTE ]
If they do know me, I don't mind sitting to their immediate left if I think I rate to know how to counter their adjustment to me better than they can adjust to me (if that makes sense.)


[/ QUOTE ]

This and

[ QUOTE ]
In both of these situations I feel that I am better off than I would be playing against a random player.


[/ QUOTE ]

This I currently don't agree with entirely, except that you are clearly at an advantage to the left of the pro in level 1-3(4). I am going to think about this a lot more.

[ QUOTE ]
But the bottom line is the zero-sum nature of a SNG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really agree with this and think it strongly conflicts with your previous argument about prefering a semi-predictable pro to an unknown.

[ QUOTE ]
or if you could use his non-exploitable play as a weapon by proxy to help extract additional dollars from poor playing opponents(a topic perhaps worthy of its own thread some day.)


[/ QUOTE ]

This I have thought about and have actually done in a few SNGs recently. It can be extremly powerful and can also be done in a way that gives yourself less risk then usual. The chips stacks usually have to be just right as well as your relative position at the table.

As for personal adjustments... I have a little something I like to call.. the spite call. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Freudian]

Interesting post. I wonder if higher limits take longer to fill up, because at 22$ you basically have to pick a seat and hope you end up ok. If too many skilled players join you can try to leave the table. But to specifically target someone is something I don't think I would have time for most of the time. There is the odd table that takes 20 secs to fill up of course, but that is pretty rare.

[apd138]

[ QUOTE ]
The most practical way is to only add notes to good players. That way you will see the little icon in the bottom left corner by their name when you sit down. Too many icons and you might want to skip that game.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm going to assume I must be retarted for not knowing how to do this, but could somoene explain how if its not too complicated? Thanks.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to assume I must be retarted for not knowing how to do this, but could somoene explain how if its not too complicated? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, the retarTed meme needs to die.

Right click on the player's name when you're at the table and click "Player Notes" or the functionally equivalent piece of text. Type what you want. Afterwards, you will notice in the bottom left corner of the box that contains their name a little notepad. This is the icon that was mentioned in an earlier post. This assumes Party, and varies from place to place. At Stars, for example, opponents you have notes on will have an N at the bottom of their avatar ring.

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
This I currently don't agree with entirely, except that you are clearly at an advantage to the left of the pro in level 1-3(4). I am going to think about this a lot more.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pro is going to be playing so few hands lev 1-3 that it really doesn't matter where he's sitting.

The real advantage comes level 4+ where your position to his left negates a good deal of his fold equity because he knows that you know he'll be pushing with junk a good percentage of the time.

This of course only applies if he knows you are also a pro.

[Daliman]

My general rule is 2 decent or better players means I move on to another table. There are plenty to be had, even at the $200 level.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
So it's not clear to me what you gain by sitting to his right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand the gap concept?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you understand the gap concept?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having never read whichever Sklansky book he coined this term in, I'm not 100% sure, but I believe you just mean the maxim that you need a better hand to call with than to raise with. That's all well and good. Let's say you're stealing a lot of pots. If I'm sitting to your right, I can try and trap you with limps, but that doesn't work well late in SNGs; late game limps are going to seem very suspicious. If I'm sitting to your left and you're trying to steal a lot of pots, I view that as being an excellent position for a resteal, in general. It is possible that SNG stacks get so short by the time in which this is relevant that restealing isn't going to be much of an option, in which case this is a rather non-trivial result arising from SNG strategy.

Having said all of that, I'm still not clear on why you want to sit immediately right of a player you suspect to be more skillful than average at SNGs. Wouldn't you rather position yourself to steal the blind of somebody who is more likely to be too tight late? Or are you that concerned about there being any chance of it getting down to shorthanded and having your target be SB to your BB? It still doesn't make much sense to me, because it's not at all clear that what you give up there isn't compensated for by what you gain.

[wuwei]

How often does having postflop position on another good player come into play for you during a typical SNG?

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not 100% sure

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with your thought process is that there is finality to an ALLIN blind steal. There is no more game within the game. Furthermore, a resteal has it's dangers if villain has pot committed himself. Nothing like a coinflip at the wrong time.

I would prefer to sit to the right of a tight player all night and day.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
How often does having postflop position on another good player come into play for you during a typical SNG?

[/ QUOTE ]

a) I don't play at Party, which I think is fairly relevant here. After playing a while at Paradise, I felt like going someplace where I could multitable SNGs. I picked Stars, mostly because a deeper stacked game for the first few levels seemed more fun to me. There's a fair amount more room for play here, and I think it can become relevant. I'll concede that at Party, the structure is such that you are probably not going to play postflop with the guy.

b) I don't play a large enough volume of SNGs to have a substantial playerbase marked as good. By the time I have identified a player as at least decent, it's usually fairly late in the game.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
How often does having postflop position on another good player come into play for you during a typical SNG?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a move I'm seeing a bit lately. bigger stack v bigger stack, stop-n-go. Here we have two stacks exchanging chips postflop. Or a blind steal gone awry. I think this has its dangers, and it's benefits. And it's a way to get some chips from an aggressive player if you were semi-interested in challenging him preflop, but might just take the chips postflop without a challenge. I've only done it once, where there was so much table aggression that I never had any blind steal attempts. He folded to my postflop bet (in which I had nothing, btw).

[gumpzilla]

Yes, but what about the last part of what I wrote (which I'm not entirely sure you read)? I would think that at higher levels, a stronger player is probably more likely to defend his blind than average, knowing that your range for stealing is quite possibly any two; at lower levels, it's probably the opposite. If this were the case, then I think my last question in my previous post is worthwhile.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but what about the last part of what I wrote (which I'm not entirely sure you read)? I would think that at higher levels, a stronger player is probably more likely to defend his blind than average

[/ QUOTE ]

Defend how? How do you defend against an allin? If you mean by just calling, you're falling into a serious pitfall of long term poker problems and nights of agony. So what, they are bluffing. Let's say they tell you they are bluffing, and you're holding K2. Will you call? What about KQ? Let's say he flashed you his cards, and he had A2. You're slightly behind, would you still call? What if the hands were reversed, would you still call then? I think you underestimate the power of the blind steal.

Foolishly defending blinds is a serious SNG flaw.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but what about the last part of what I wrote (which I'm not entirely sure you read)? I would think that at higher levels, a stronger player is probably more likely to defend his blind than average, knowing that your range for stealing is quite possibly any two; at lower levels, it's probably the opposite. If this were the case, then I think my last question in my previous post is worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless the strong player has a specific read on you, this should actually often turn out to be the opposite of what is true. Poor players don't understand gap/sng/bubble concepts, and generally call with worse hands. Stronger players have tighter calling standards. For instance, a strong player is not going to call with Ax from the BB without a good reason (pot odds, specific read), but many poor players will always call with it all the time.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]

As for personal adjustments... I have a little something I like to call.. the spite call. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the spite call is a big bummer for me. I was playing a SNG where I was using the predictability of another strong player as a weapon, and it was working nicely.

We were in level 3, and he was doing what a lot of strong, but inexperienced players do in level 3 and he was limping from late position with strongish/marginal hands. I, then, was pushing over the top and taking the free chips (a level 3 move now called "The Van Sexton.")

Well, I was multitabling and realized just a click too late that I had been doing this maybe a bit too much, and the solid/predictable player got sick of it and made a spite call with J-9.

My K-9 was domintating, but as you know, if somebody makes a spite call against you, they always win. ICM doesn't account for this.

Irieguy

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Foolishly defending blinds is a serious SNG flaw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foolishy defending blinds is a poker flaw.

However, there are clearly going to be times where calling when you're in the BB and you've been pushed over are going to be correct, and I don't think they're going to be limited to the times that you have a big holding. What are your calling standards against an opponent who pushes any two from the button heads-up?

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
What are your calling standards against an opponent who pushes any two from the button heads-up?


[/ QUOTE ]

How many people in the game still?
What are the stack sizes?
What are the blind sizes?
Is the table tight or loose?


Finally, you made the comment, headsup. Did you mean when it's just down to two of us? If so, I will need to know the blind size and stacksizes. Also, how often does he push vs. raise?

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a move I'm seeing a bit lately. bigger stack v bigger stack, stop-n-go.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a move I use much or even see much, but again it's to your benefit to sit on their right (and act first).

[ QUOTE ]
I've only done it once, where there was so much table aggression that I never had any blind steal attempts. He folded to my postflop bet (in which I had nothing, btw).

[/ QUOTE ]

Try as hard as you like, but we know you're weak/tight and you wont convince us otherwise /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I'm craving a beer this week... any night but wednesday.

[gumpzilla]

Of course all of those things are important. My point (which is almost a tautology) is that a skilled player is more likely to make a good assessment of what he should do given all of this than a weaker player. I'm guessing that at higher levels when these issues become relevant, a more common error is for players to be too hesitant to call out of the BB against an opponent who steals a lot. Benholio suggests that this is wrong, citing a tendency to call with Ax no matter what as an example. This is an interesting point for debate, I think.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
a skilled player is more likely to make a good assessment of what he should do

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think a "skilled" player would CALL without a great hand? Like Top 5 hands? Maybe top 7.

[ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting point for debate, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

This information passed along by many forum members, including myself, has been posted many times over and over. Search the archives, there are some very good debates held especially with math included.

I'm trying to push you to do some research and come back. There are many posts from people far more credible than me regarding this issue. IMO, studying the archives will save you a lot more pain and agony (and $$), than continuing on with the belief that there is some sanity in defending your blinds against an allin without a premium hand (especially if not on the bubble or ITM).

If you want to continue a discussion, find an older thread to discuss. Then PM me, and I'll continue.

Scuba

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]

the <font color="red"> solid/predictable player </font> got sick of it and made a <font color="red"> spite call with J-9. </font>


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, yeah. I'd have to go with him not being a solid player. This is a horrible, horrible, horrible call any way one looks at it...

No 'solid' player will ever make this call.

Although I'm sure this is just semantics. You probably mean: 'weak/tightish predictable player who is probably slightly winning.'

Isn't it funny that 'The Van Sexton' would work pretty well against Van Sexton?? I always thought that to be ironic.../images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Yugoslav

[The Yugoslavian]

Here's the thing Mr. Zilla...a good STT player will almost always be making *fewer* calls in his/her big blind than a poor STT player (not the pot odd calls perhaps but certainly the steals one would want to run vs. him/her).

So, if you sit to a good player's right, he/she will almost always play tighter to your allins than a poor player ur to the right of. This is true at any level of blinds (the only exception would probably be HU where there are some opponents who are tighter in their calling standards than the good STT player).

It is interesting that vs. some good known opponents, sitting to their left may be more profitable .... I will have to think of this more, but I'd imagine the group Irie has in mind is very small indeed.

Yugoslav

[microbet]

This post and the one it refers to had me thinking that maybe SNG aren't the best way to go in the upper limits. In an SNG, it seems, you certainly don't want to play if there are a few good players, but in a cash game it seems like you just want to make sure there are a few really weak players.

However, Daliman says there are plenty of $200 tables without too many good players, so I guess it's all good. I'd hate to have to leave SNGs, because I think they are fun, but I don't really think cash games are, at least not online.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you think a "skilled" player would CALL without a great hand? Like Top 5 hands? Maybe top 7.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

How many people in the game still?
What are the stack sizes?
What are the blind sizes?
Is the table tight or loose?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why are all of your fine questions above not relevant here?

[ QUOTE ]
than continuing on with the belief that there is some sanity in defending your blinds against an allin without a premium hand (especially if not on the bubble or ITM).

[/ QUOTE ]

Situationally, there is some sanity in just such a thing. The situations are going to be pretty rare, which I think we both can agree on. But they're still there.


Yugo, I'll respond to you here as well. I'd love a big blind that is less inclined to make calls with almost anything when they're getting 3:1 style odds to call my SB pushes. This is part of what I'm talking about. As for why it might be profitable to sit to the left in an SNG if the opponent knows Irie, the rationale that you're discussing suggests increasing the frequency of BB steals against a good player. I'd imagine that Irie would be able to adjust his calling range appropriately if he thought you were pushing with any two, in situations where it was appropriate to do so. Perhaps this is the counter-adjustment to the adjustment of which he spoke.

Also, if you guys have any suggestions about which threads I might look at with regards to the issue of higher level players still being too loose in the BB, I'd be happy to take a look, but that seems awfully specific and not so frequently discussed as to be easy to search for. If you just mean that there are tons of ICM calculations out there that talk about having a tight calling range, then yes, I've seen a ton of those.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]


No 'solid' player will ever make this call.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to open your mind to the possibility that people will do things that you don't expect. Especially good players. Good players will sometimes see value in unorthodox plays. Good players will sometimes misclick. Good players will sometimes tilt. Good players will sometimes play drunk. And... good players will sometimes make a spite call.

If you find yourself constantly surprised by the decisions players make, then you are not doing a good enough job anticipating how they will truly behave. Perhaps the most important part of becoming skilled at hand reading is understanding how inaccurate your "range of hands" estimates rate to be.

[ QUOTE ]
Although I'm sure this is just semantics. You probably mean: 'weak/tightish predictable player who is probably slightly winning.'

[/ QUOTE ]

No. That player would be less likely to try a late position limp with J-9 in level 3, and then spite-call my push.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it funny that 'The Van Sexton' would work pretty well against Van Sexton?? I always thought that to be ironic.../images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it? Do you think he's likely to limp from late position with a marginal holding in level 3 because he's trying to see a flop and build a pot? I think his approach to level 3 is much different than that (based on his very nice thread on the topic.) Though, the Van Sexton would probalby work well against Van Sexton in levels 1 and 2.

Irieguy

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

Isn't it funny that 'The Van Sexton' would work pretty well against Van Sexton?? I always thought that to be ironic....


[/ QUOTE ]


Would it? Do you think he's likely to limp from late position with a marginal holding in level 3 because he's trying to see a flop and build a pot? I think his approach to level 3 is much different than that (based on his very nice thread on the topic.) Though, the Van Sexton would probalby work well against Van Sexton in levels 1 and 2.


[/ QUOTE ]


It probably would work against me in level 1 or 2, but I'd just fold and let one of the other 5 limpers call with J9. I lose 15 or 30 chips; you lose your stack.

I probably should've mentioned that the "Van Sexton" needs to be used in moderation, like alcohol. Maybe that's a bad example.

You see it overused more in side games. Some players will always raise to like 10xBB from the blinds whenerver there are a bunch of limpers. If I see someone doing this, the next time I limp, I will have spite....and a hand.

I did this at the 100NL recently. I limped from the button with 99. BB dutifully raised to 10xBB, and I pushed for 100xBB. He called with KT. (Note to Scuba: this isn't a tournament, so being a 55% favorite is a good thing).

In other words, Irie was lucky to only see J9, but as he said, he's losing either way.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the <font color="red"> solid/predictable player </font> got sick of it and made a <font color="red"> spite call with J-9. </font>


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, yeah. I'd have to go with him not being a solid player. This is a horrible, horrible, horrible call any way one looks at it...

No 'solid' player will ever make this call.

Although I'm sure this is just semantics. You probably mean: 'weak/tightish predictable player who is probably slightly winning.'

Isn't it funny that 'The Van Sexton' would work pretty well against Van Sexton?? I always thought that to be ironic.../images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

A solid player WOULD make this call. It wouldn't be a solid play on it's own, but its future value could be HUGE.

[raptor517]

nobody gonna wanna steal from the guy that calls with J9 /images/graemlins/wink.gif holla

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
nobody gonna wanna steal from the guy that calls with J9 /images/graemlins/wink.gif holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think that this is the reason that players like gambooholic_ make such loose calls from time to time?

For meta game purposes?

[raptor517]

that cant possibly be it, they are just terrible. thats the only possible explanation. bwahahaha

[DonButtons]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nobody gonna wanna steal from the guy that calls with J9 /images/graemlins/wink.gif holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think that this is the reason that players like gambooholic_ make such loose calls from time to time?

For meta game purposes?

[/ QUOTE ]

your getting somewhere /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[The Yugoslavian]

Ahhh, yes. I was completely forgetting about any meta-game considerations.

Okay....I want to revise my stance and say that I don't like the spite call in a very general sense. But I'm not completely blinded anymore to the move having potential to be +$EV over time.

The great thing about my post as I've learned more from it than 99% of my other posts.../images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Yugoslav

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
This post and the one it refers to had me thinking that maybe SNG aren't the best way to go in the upper limits. In an SNG, it seems, you certainly don't want to play if there are a few good players, but in a cash game it seems like you just want to make sure there are a few really weak players.

However, Daliman says there are plenty of $200 tables without too many good players, so I guess it's all good. I'd hate to have to leave SNGs, because I think they are fun, but I don't really think cash games are, at least not online.

[/ QUOTE ]

the highest i have ever played was in a 55 so i don't have any firsthand experience...however, i have discussed with several people at various live tourneys around town that i play online every now and then (yeah like the moon comes out at night every now and then /images/graemlins/wink.gif) and i have met at least 5 people who were utter fish tell me that they love playing the "party $200 single table tournies." what many people at this forum dont realize is that there are fish at every level as gambling is merely a thrill to many. this is precisely what makes poker a beatable game. furthermore, it is reason to never berate someone who is a lesser opponent than you as you may shoe him away from playing with you in future episodes.

[viennagreen]

if i sit to the left, or end up being to the left, of a person that i have marked as a good player--- my range of hands that i call their all-ins with greatly decreases-- because i know that their range of all-in hands is fairly wide.

with an unknown player, i am much more tight with my calling requirements (if my chip stack allows it)

[raptor517]

you mean u increase the range, but decrease the quality i think. holla

[viennagreen]

yes of course.. i misspoke.. holla /images/graemlins/smile.gif