finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

It's Friday and that means plenty of fish tonight. What do you look for when deciding which tables to sit at/wait for? I'm not talking about knowing when to leave the table. How do you decide which tables have the best potential? I 3-table 50NL full-ring (9-handed). Here's what I look for:

- high percentage (>35%) of players seeing the flop
- high average pot (>$10)
- 0 on the waiting list
- seats where big stacks are to my right
- find fish that you've tagged (player look-up) <-- anyone do this?

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

I do the first three every time. I play 6-max, so as long as I am not immediately left of the big stack, I don't worry too much about table position.

Stars doesn't allow you to have a buddy list (at least I haven't figured it out) so it is too cumbersome to try find certain fishies. If anyone has an easy buddy list system for Stars I'm all ears.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

Why do you say low content? I think this is incredibly high content. One of the biggest parts of being a winning poker player is having good table selection. In any case, I first look for buddy listed players. Having one or two of these guys in my games makes a HUGE difference. If no one is on then I open up the games with the biggest average pot size and I put myself on the waiting list (these games always have waiting lists). Then I pop up the player stats for the tables and when I get my turn to sit, if there is one player with VPIP over 50 or two players with VPIP over 40 I will sit. Unless there is a good LAG directly behind me, in which case I might take a pass because that situation is just such a pain that it is not worth it unless the table is VERY good.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

How do you pop up the player stats before you sit? Is that a Party specific feature? If so, I may need to start fishing in a different lake.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

I'm finding table VP$IP and pot size waxes and wanes over a couple of hours, at least at the $25s. So I pay less attention to overall table stats.

I look for sizable stacks and high VP$IP to my right.

The only thing that vetoes a table for me is too many TAG players: VP$IP < 25%, aggr > 1.0.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you say low content? I think this is incredibly high content. One of the biggest parts of being a winning poker player is having good table selection.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought no hand meant no content. Anyway, I think table selection is huge. Realizing that you've picked a bad table (for your style of play) is also important.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stars doesn't allow you to have a buddy list (at least I haven't figured it out) so it is too cumbersome to try find certain fishies. If anyone has an easy buddy list system for Stars I'm all ears.

[/ QUOTE ]
This aint an very easy way but, just search for the player under "Find Player" then he will appear in the list there next time you log in to Pokerstars, you can also remove players from that list if you want. This is not nearly as good as the Party-feature but it works.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stars doesn't allow you to have a buddy list (at least I haven't figured it out) so it is too cumbersome to try find certain fishies. If anyone has an easy buddy list system for Stars I'm all ears.

[/ QUOTE ]
This aint an very easy way but, just search for the player under "Find Player" then he will appear in the list there next time you log in to Pokerstars, you can also remove players from that list if you want. This is not nearly as good as the Party-feature but it works.

[/ QUOTE ]

I use that as well and agree it is CUMBERSOME. I might put this request in the ASK LEE JONES thread in the Internet Gambling Forum

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

I use to search for players in my buddylist to start with. If I don't find one I'll just look for a table with no big stack, more than 1.5 buy-in. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] I only play 6-max NL.

When I'm at the table I use to leave if it doesnt feel right or the stats of the other players tells me they are good.

Guess I have to do work some with my table selection.

I almost never leave a table if its one BIG fish at it even if the rest of the table is good players.

Is one BIG fish enough for a table to stay at it? What do you other guys think?

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you say low content? I think this is incredibly high content. One of the biggest parts of being a winning poker player is having good table selection.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought no hand meant no content. Anyway, I think table selection is huge. Realizing that you've picked a bad table (for your style of play) is also important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Occasionally sitting at a table that makes your style of play difficult can be excellent from a learning standpoint as it forces you to take a different approach.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]


Occasionally sitting at a table that makes your style of play difficult can be excellent from a learning standpoint as it forces you to take a different approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm definitely finding that true

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Occasionally sitting at a table that makes your style of play difficult can be excellent from a learning standpoint as it forces you to take a different approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sometimes when my 9-handed table becomes 6-handed, I'll stick around a bit (instead of finding a new full table). Look Ma, I'm playing 6-max!

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

Using GT+ I just load the stats for one of the players at the table instead of myself.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Using GT+ I just load the stats for one of the players at the table instead of myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I use PA HUD, but I will have look at GT+.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is one BIG fish enough for a table to stay at it? What do you other guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, as long as you can play effectively with the other players. One big hand against that player could make your session. I was at a table with all TAGs and one BIG fish. This guy was stacking people and getting stacked frequently. He'd run his stack over 200BBs, then have to rebuy 10 minutes later. All the TAGs had an understanding (no collusion or chat, though) to stay away from each other and take shots at the fish. We were all sad to see him go.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Using GT+ I just load the stats for one of the players at the table instead of myself.

[/ QUOTE ]
This way you just get the stats for That specific player, not the hole table, don't you?

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

Ok, I've been there as well... In No Limit my opinion that's not a big problem. When playing 6-max Limit (very rare nowadays) I can't sit a table with only one fish because you have to play with the others all the time, defending/steal blinds etc etc.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

Nope whole table. Basically I just say that I am FishCrusher2000 or whatever instead of me and then it loads the table stats for the table that FishCrusher2000 just like it would if I were actually sitting at the table.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I've been there as well... In No Limit my opinion that's not a big problem. When playing 6-max Limit (very rare nowadays) I can't sit a table with only one fish because you have to play with the others all the time, defending/steal blinds etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 6-max, if I can't get 5 fishies, I like a table with a 1 or 2 fish, a calling station and a rock or two. You can steal from the rocks while you wait to stack the others. I like predictable opponents.

I hate the swings that a table full of LAGs produces, though when you get hot, you can make the $$$$.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nope whole table. Basically I just say that I am FishCrusher2000 or whatever instead of me and then it loads the table stats for the table that FishCrusher2000 just like it would if I were actually sitting at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, that sounds great. Maybe it's time to change to Poker Tracker so I can use GT+ etc. (I am using Poker Office now).

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Using GT+ I just load the stats for one of the players at the table instead of myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I use PA HUD, but I will have look at GT+.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you play that PA doesn't load the stats without sitting? I know it works at Party and x-skins

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Using GT+ I just load the stats for one of the players at the table instead of myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I use PA HUD, but I will have look at GT+.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you play that PA doesn't load the stats without sitting? I know it works at Party and x-skins

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars. If anyone knows to load stas w/out sitting please post a link.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Using GT+ I just load the stats for one of the players at the table instead of myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man TWP, why are you still using GT+. Get PA HUD, it's free as well and way better. It will automatically populate the info if any people are already in your DB. Lots of other goodies not available in GT+.

One awesome feature that I am pretty sure GT+ doesn't have is that for each table you are at you can put your stat's on that table and can set it so the data is for that table only. This is great cause the cards might be making you crazy LAG at one table and a nit at the other.


As for the original ?, I do pretty much what TWP does. I also pretty much just find any 3-5 handed table that looks good and just sit. If after being there for probably 15 min and it doesn't look good I leave. I used to not do this and just stick around, but after playing Omaha for a long time where the player pool is much smaller I really got a lesson in how important table/seat selection is.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

PA HUD now costs $25. It is still well worth the price. Josh does a great job with providing support and deserves a little something in his pocket for the trouble.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Using GT+ I just load the stats for one of the players at the table instead of myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I use PA HUD, but I will have look at GT+.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you play that PA doesn't load the stats without sitting? I know it works at Party and x-skins

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars. If anyone knows to load stas w/out sitting please post a link.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a trade-off.

http://pokeracesoftware.com/hud/tuto...?page=cfgstars

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

Thanks. Looks like I have a project for this weekend.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
PA HUD now costs $25. It is still well worth the price. Josh does a great job with providing support and deserves a little something in his pocket for the trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I haven't updated in a while (still on .31) so I must not have noticed. I guess I'll have to pay when if I upgrade.

Regardless, yes it is well worth the 25 bucks. I was going to donate to him regardless so I will just make the purchase when I get off my ass and get the latest version.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

I tried PA HUD and didn't like it. Maybe I'm just a creature of habit, but GT+ works fine for me. And I play at UB sometimes where the HH grabber incorporated into GT+ is a life saver. And GT+ does allow you to only display your stats from that table so you can see what your image is on each table. It was a new feature in a somewhat recent release (a few months ago).

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Using GT+ I just load the stats for one of the players at the table instead of myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I use PA HUD, but I will have look at GT+.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, PA HUD supports this better than GT+. Maybe you have an old version; the version I have displays both the table averages and player-specific stats as soon as it (automatically) sees the table appear.

What I do is fire up 10 tables and then leave for an hour or so. Once I come back, all the stats are populated and ready for use.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I tried PA HUD and didn't like it. Maybe I'm just a creature of habit, but GT+ works fine for me. And I play at UB sometimes where the HH grabber incorporated into GT+ is a life saver. And GT+ does allow you to only display your stats from that table so you can see what your image is on each table. It was a new feature in a somewhat recent release (a few months ago).

[/ QUOTE ]

I do use GT+ on UB only for that reason. Wasn't aware of the changes to GT+ that is very nice.

Whatever works for you of course. I've grown accustomed to PA HUD now so it is my new habit.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I tried PA HUD and didn't like it. Maybe I'm just a creature of habit, but GT+ works fine for me. And I play at UB sometimes where the HH grabber incorporated into GT+ is a life saver. And GT+ does allow you to only display your stats from that table so you can see what your image is on each table. It was a new feature in a somewhat recent release (a few months ago).

[/ QUOTE ]

PA has a hand grabber built-in, too. It also will grab the past X hands (where you can specify X). It also will show your stats only from the current table if you include that on your layout. Honestly, PA is the bomb and I can't see myself every using anything else.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

FWIW I noticed in PA HUD that clicking on my own name box at a Party Poker table brings up my stats for just that table. That way, I can see what others see of me for that session.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

The skins and Party don't have anything but average pot size in the lobby so I'll just open 2-3 tables with the highest averages. If the waiting list is long for those I'll just add my name to the waiting list. If it's short, I'll data mine the table for 10 hands or so before deciding if I put myself on the waiting list. Ultimately, what I look for is people with VPIP > 40 with big stacks before sitting down and playing.

Then I do a search for people on my buddy list to get up to 4 tables open. If one of the buddies has a stack of 1.5x the buy in or more I'll immediately sit or put myself on the waiting list for that table.

This is for 6 max, btw, and I use PokerAce.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

Does anyone else actively seek out tables with shortstacks? I find that if I can find a table with 3-5 opponents who have ~50BB that the table will have a very high VPIP, low aggression, and it will be very easy. I tend to crush these tables by limping more and just value betting well.

Shortstacks are big time fish.

(Stars 100NL 6max)

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else actively seek out tables with shortstacks? I find that if I can find a table with 3-5 opponents who have ~50BB that the table will have a very high VPIP, low aggression, and it will be very easy. I tend to crush these tables by limping more and just value betting well.

Shortstacks are big time fish.

(Stars 100NL 6max)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really do this alot, but if I happen to find a table with several or only shortstacks I usually sit down and make good money, only problem is that they leave so fast(hopefully after getting stacked a couple times). So far I've been quite lucky with these kinds of tables adding new shortstacks though so it's all good.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else actively seek out tables with shortstacks? ...Shortstacks are big time fish.

[/ QUOTE ]
I prefer the fish to have a big stack. I want big implied odds when playing my pairs (set value) and SCs. big fish + big stack = bigger mistake

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else actively seek out tables with shortstacks? ...Shortstacks are big time fish.

[/ QUOTE ]
I prefer the fish to have a big stack. I want big implied odds when playing my pairs (set value) and SCs. big fish + big stack = bigger mistake

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but vs fishy shortstacks you can bust them more often with worse hands instead of busting them once in a while with slightly better hands. Besides I find it harder to find fishes with big stacks, maybe it's just me.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but vs fishy shortstacks you can bust them more often with worse hands instead of busting them once in a while with slightly better hands. Besides I find it harder to find fishes with big stacks, maybe it's just me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like playing the shortstacks when they're desperate to either double-up or go home. It's easy money as the shortstacks move in and hope for the best. I think it's annoying playing against someone who KNOWS how to play a good shortstack strategy, though. They cut down your implied odds, they often have odds to call or push all-in, etc.

There are plenty of big stack fish at 50NL full-ring on Stars. Lots of them can't lay down AA, KK, or AK with TPTK. I think Party's even more fishy.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else actively seek out tables with shortstacks? I find that if I can find a table with 3-5 opponents who have ~50BB that the table will have a very high VPIP, low aggression, and it will be very easy. I tend to crush these tables by limping more and just value betting well.

Shortstacks are big time fish.

(Stars 100NL 6max)

[/ QUOTE ]

If they don't know how to play their short stack it can be pretty profitable. I see alot of players with 20BB making a standard PF raise of 5bb or so and folding to a reraise, or calling for half their stack and check/folding a flop.

Re: finding potentially good tables (lc)
 

I don't think I've ever met anyone who plays shortstacks good so can't really comment on that. But yeah you're probably right, any tips on how to spot good shortstacks before they win the pot(s)?