Game selection

[Shanemex]

I was wondering how other small stakes players approach game selection, particually if you play multiple tables. I play on party poker and just normally join the wait list for the first available 3/6 games with at least 9 players. Is game selection really important, even at the 3/6 level online? Party poker doesn't list % seeing the flop so I don't know much about how loose the game is. I also only have notes for about 100 players so I rarely find a table with more than one person I know. I assume this will change as I log a lot more hands, but I am not sure if I should spend more time and effort finding good games. Do you guys take the time to look for a good table? If so, what do you look for? I assume loose-passive tables or a table with a couple of maniacs would be best, but I am not sure. Thanks

[MAxx]

Put AcesDad on your buddy list and follow him around. J/k- this is based one of the most insiteful/funny things I have heard recently (posted by sfer). AcesDad plays 3/6 party and he follows the the big pot averages. He is a solid player, so we are not dogging him out b/c of his ability... it is just funny b/c you just see him so frequently at the big pot avg 3/6 games (and enough people have noticed that sfer would actually state it as a truism).

Anyway, to me it is simple. Big pots at 3/6= loose players making mistakes...... plenty of chips to be taken.

Why are the pot avg high? IMO, either the pot avg is high b/c 1) too many are seeing the flop and takeing their hands too far or 2)b/c there is a couple of LAGs or a Maniac(s) at the table. Generally- it will become evident pretty quickly what kind of table you are at. Both are profitable, just use different weapons. (Note: I realize that there are blends of these table conditions, but I think it is fine and helpful to catoregize)

I think that it is easier and more natural for solid players to take advantage of number 1 (and I think this situation is more common to find than number 2) but defeating true manics can be very profitable and fun.

Anyway, some will say that there is more to scouting tables or game selection than pot avgs... which is very true. But at 3/6 and under, I think that the most efficient thing to do to get the money is to follow the pot avgs. At 3/6, I am getting on waiting lists for the pot avgs of $50 and up and I will leave if the avgs get much below $45 and don't appear to be getting back up.

EDIT: I will go out on a limb and say that this table selection is very important, and I think it is worth the effort to take this extra step. Sure it is a pain in the to get on table specific lists over the easy alternative of 1st available w/ x players. Sure it can be a pain to constantly flip back to the loby screen and scope out the pot avgs to line up my next possible tables. Sure it is a pain in the arse when that seat available screen comes up and interfears with my play at awkard times and I have to go check out pot avgs before I accept the new seat. Sure it is a pain to be contstantly hopping from table to table. This is a contstant hustle for me, going through this process almost continuously while I am playing. Sometimes I get a break from the hustle when I find one or 2 good tables that the pot avgs just stay high for 45 minutes to an hour. This is as much a part of my game as raising aces. If I get xbbs/per y unit of measure, I easily think that if I didnt do this I would be making x-1/ per y unit of measure. I am glad that not everyone does this and is lazier in this reguard, or we may not ever get a full game going. I am that annoying player that is constantly hopping in and hopping out. I don't know AcesDad personally, but he is too.

[bdk3clash]

I sort by pot size and try to play in games where it's higher than 10 BBs. I think it's a decent approximation for a "good game."

I also add players that stand out to me as really, really bad to my buddy list and sit at their tables even if the average pot size is smaller than I would prefer. This is getting to be a problem because I also add known 2+2ers to my buddy list, and mistaking one type of buddy for the other isn't fun.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
This is getting to be a problem because I also add known 2+2ers to my buddy list, and mistaking one type of buddy for the other isn't fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've started only putting the bad players on my buddy list and reserving a special PT icon for 2+2'ers. That's because I usually don't care about hunting down the 2+2'ers, but I do care about the fish. Once I hit a table, it's easy enough to check the notes and realize that I've found a 2+2'er.

Just my 2 cents...

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]


I also add players that stand out to me as really, really bad to my buddy list and sit at their tables even if the average pot size is smaller than I would prefer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll second that. A well-maintained buddy list is a terrific advantage.