Super-Tight Party Tables

[mcozzy1]

I need to find some way of keeping stats on the overall tightness of the low limit party games. It's just ridiculous at times. It's hard to believe people think these games will stay good for many years to come. I have my buddy list of fish, so I can always find some decent games, but tonight it's just insane.

I just opened 10 random party games with large pots. I had stats of over 50 hands on about half the players at each table. At no table was there someone who had a VP$IP over 18. (I'm sure there were some players I didn't have stats on who fit this category). There are so many freakin multitablers.

Today, the games were good. Tonight, they are so tight.

[TheMetetron]

Games were great today @ $3/6... of course, that means I finished down. But the games were great nonetheless.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
Games were great today @ $3/6... of course, that means I finished down. But the games were great nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you and I both have the same problem. I'll find great tables and get my butt whipped but tear up a table that I should have never sat at in the first place.

[OrianasDaad]

[ QUOTE ]
I need to find some way of keeping stats on the overall tightness of the low limit party games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you already have GT+ or Playerview and PT, what more do you need?

[ QUOTE ]
It's just ridiculous at times. It's hard to believe people think these games will stay good for many years to come.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Do you think that there are more good players than bad ones?

[ QUOTE ]
I just opened 10 random party games with large pots. ... There are so many freakin multitablers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahem.

Don't open random games. Also consider that many 2+2ers will be going after the same games - the ones with the largest pots.

The trick is to figure out which tables are likely to become good. Table VPIP runs in cycles.

[Subby]

I have always tried to approach table selection from a different angle. I actually avoid the tables with the largest average pots since I am pretty sure every other 17%VPIPer is on the waiting list for those, too. Usually, I shoot for the ones with lower-than-average pots. I monitor them for 30 minutes using the observed hand function in PT and get on the waiting list. By the time I get on the table, they have usually loosened quite a bit. Of course it also helps that I have 30 minutes of observed hands on at least half the people there...

This approach might not work for everyone, or even be the best idea...but it seems to have worked for me so far.

[frank_iii]

Subby, I'm beginning to experiment with this approach as well. Anecdotally, I find that I have far fewer notes on the players in the smaller pot tables.

[Subby]

[ QUOTE ]
Subby, I'm beginning to experiment with this approach as well. Anecdotally, I find that I have far fewer notes on the players in the smaller pot tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. That's why I find observing a table for 30 minutes (thanks to consilience/excession for the idea) before I sit down to be crucial. Then at the very least you are going to have around 30 hands worth of data on a number of the players there.

I also try and datamine about 10-15K hands per month during the evening hours but that's pretty hit or miss and I usually just end up with 300 hands on some other 2+2ers [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[CountDuckula]

Yeah, I got my butt spanked badly last week at PokerNow (a Party skin, for those who don't know). I ended up cashing out 1/3 of my original deposit and going off to bonus whore elsewhere. I think I'm going to have to rethink my strategy for finding a low-limit table. The other posts in this thread have given me some ideas.

-Mike

[BruinEric]

I'm starting to believe there is a higher likliehood of running into a multitabling mouse/eagle/moneybag at a "named" table as well. Does anyone else notice this?

(I'm only playing .5/1)

[mcozzy1]

What's a "named" table?