naphand
01-28-2004, 06:25 PM
We talk a lot about hand selection, and how to play hands in here but, what about table selection?
An experience I had in Party yesterday left me thinking about what kind of table conditions people like to play under.
Personally, I like to see a couple loose passive/calling station types one of whom will pay you off by calling any part of the flop to the River. I am happy to see one or two other aggressive players on the table (but not more than 1 maniac) as I often get the chance to 3-bet hands where I want to get the chips in and the players out. The others I prefer as weak/tight or typical.
Too many LAG and the table gets a bit wild for me - though I have done pretty well on these kinds of tables when I see them. Perhaps it's just a confidence thing, but a poor run of cards on a table like this and you are looking at some pretty big down swings.
Too many tight players and the game is just plain tedious.
Too many loose/passives and you are looking at lots of suckouts, raising becoming less effective as far as manipulating players involved goes, blinds that never fold (so no steals possible) and bluffing a waste of time.
I was prompted me to post this after playing a Party $1/$2 table of complete fish. 5 players all seeing the flop for a limp, every hand (or calling 2 when I raised). No-one folding the Flop with any part of it. Any draw was played to the River, regardless, as was any pair. My results were terrible. I only stopped when the table broke up, but suspect the torture would have continued indefinitely... /images/graemlins/mad.gif
42 hands played.
-18.5BB
V$IP 21%
Saw flop 43% (never raised PF)
Hands won 1 (1.5BB)
Clearly this was a small sample and I was dealt some poor cards/missed flops but, I saw many, many hands won with FH, straights, flushes. Alarmingly so. I have played tables like this previously, and usually find them extremely frustrating as you really need a good run of cards to wealk away with a profit, it seems.
Would you really want to play a table like this? This is what prompted me to post - maybe there are better table conditions more conducive to winning big pots with less variance.
Just an idea (not a bad beat column).
An experience I had in Party yesterday left me thinking about what kind of table conditions people like to play under.
Personally, I like to see a couple loose passive/calling station types one of whom will pay you off by calling any part of the flop to the River. I am happy to see one or two other aggressive players on the table (but not more than 1 maniac) as I often get the chance to 3-bet hands where I want to get the chips in and the players out. The others I prefer as weak/tight or typical.
Too many LAG and the table gets a bit wild for me - though I have done pretty well on these kinds of tables when I see them. Perhaps it's just a confidence thing, but a poor run of cards on a table like this and you are looking at some pretty big down swings.
Too many tight players and the game is just plain tedious.
Too many loose/passives and you are looking at lots of suckouts, raising becoming less effective as far as manipulating players involved goes, blinds that never fold (so no steals possible) and bluffing a waste of time.
I was prompted me to post this after playing a Party $1/$2 table of complete fish. 5 players all seeing the flop for a limp, every hand (or calling 2 when I raised). No-one folding the Flop with any part of it. Any draw was played to the River, regardless, as was any pair. My results were terrible. I only stopped when the table broke up, but suspect the torture would have continued indefinitely... /images/graemlins/mad.gif
42 hands played.
-18.5BB
V$IP 21%
Saw flop 43% (never raised PF)
Hands won 1 (1.5BB)
Clearly this was a small sample and I was dealt some poor cards/missed flops but, I saw many, many hands won with FH, straights, flushes. Alarmingly so. I have played tables like this previously, and usually find them extremely frustrating as you really need a good run of cards to wealk away with a profit, it seems.
Would you really want to play a table like this? This is what prompted me to post - maybe there are better table conditions more conducive to winning big pots with less variance.
Just an idea (not a bad beat column).