Hypothetical Question: Table Selection

[TMFS9]

Take two identical party 5/10 6 max players, Player A and Player B. The only difference between player A and player B is that Player A is able to pick the softest possible tables and best possible relative position on those tables. While player B is only allowed to pick the toughest party 5/10 6max tables and the worst relative position at those tables. What would be the difference in bb/100 (if any) in their win rates?

[mperich]

4/100 is my guess. For a top player anyways.

-Mike

[TMFS9]

Well that definitely on the high side of what I expected some estimates to be. I guess in my renewed thinking of "damn table selection and relative position is more important that I was giving it credit for" wasn't strong enough, thanks.

[ctv1116]

just pulling numbers out of my ass, but its probably around 4 BB/100, although I'd say the tough tables break up before you could lose much (every person at the table knows there are softer games elsewhere).

[InfernoLL]

I'm gonna go with 2 BB/100. Don't forget that the good tables often deteriorate quickly too because all the good players are trying to get in.

[TMFS9]

I was thinking more of in an hypothetical vacuum where you don't have the problems of player changes or what not. But 2 bb/100 was along the lines of what I was thinking.

[helpmeout]

I'd say 4-5 is a good estimate.

Depends on how tough the tough tables are and how good the player is. If the tables are really tough you'd expect the person to lose maybe 1-2BB/100 because of rake and poor position.

On the best tables you'd expect a good player to make 4-5BB/100 especially with good position, most times you get to a good table your position sucks so your edge is a bit lower.

This is also they are playing only a couple of tables and the tables are very good.

[StellarWind]

I guess 4 BB/100 is too low.

A very good but not superb player can win 3 BB/100 through his normal table selection. Probably he can get at least 4-6 BB/100 if he always plays great tables.

Now consider a table where several sharks are devouring an uber-fish. The fish leaves and "very good" player takes his seat and posts. Perhaps very good player is now third-best at the table with only a modest advantage over the three weakest players. Considering the rake our player now probably has the worst of it and is losing.

Big difference.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
Take two identical party 5/10 6 max players, Player A and Player B. The only difference between player A and player B is that Player A is able to pick the softest possible tables and best possible relative position on those tables. While player B is only allowed to pick the toughest party 5/10 6max tables and the worst relative position at those tables. What would be the difference in bb/100 (if any) in their win rates?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting question. While obviously it depends on how good this player is at adjusting to others' play, I'd say that for most players . . . around 4BB/100. Perhaps more.

EDIT: Made my post without looking at others' first . . . looks like we're all in agreement.