Game Selection: Money on the table.
 

Traditionally, when I am finding my nl 400 tables to play in, I don't really struggle to find a good game. I usually take the first 4 games I see running with 5 people sitting. Occasionally I'll find a real sick game with some buddy list people, and I'll put myself on the waiting list. Every now and then I'll jump up to nl 600 or 1000 if I see a REAL juicy game.

BUT, my main question is this. Usually I try to find tables where the money is deep, because I feel better players can exploit their edge when the money is deep. However, a friend of mine takes the exact opposite approach. As he says, he knows that if he sees a table with everyone sitting with 100 dollars in a 2/4 table, chances are- they are all pretty awful.

So, I wonder what you all think about this, and which sort of table you would rather sit at.

Re: Game Selection: Money on the table.
 

my only game selection entails finding non short stacks. if the table is very hard i'll leave.

Re: Game Selection: Money on the table.
 

I dont mind playing with 1 or 2 short stacks because they normally do stink pretty badly, but I dont like playing all short stakcs because there just inst enough money to win.

Its particularly annoying at Prima because the min buy in is only 10BBs and alot of times you'll see 4 guys at a $200 buy in 6 max table with $50.

Re: Game Selection: Money on the table.
 

I haven't multi-tabled NL 6-max in a while, but when I did, I looked for deep stacks also. I would also try to find tables where the open slot had position on a big stack or the big stacks at the table. I never had much trouble finding a table where I could sit to the left of a 200+ BB stack.

I didn't like playing against short stacks because of what another poster said. There just isn't enough money to win.

Re: Game Selection: Money on the table.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I feel better players can exploit their edge when the money is deep.

[/ QUOTE ]

so it would be better to play against deep-stacked donks than short-stacked donks, and less bad to play against a short-stacked shark than a deep one.

so it seems obvious that a deep-stacked donk is the best, but what % of deep stacks are donks? Probably not a huge %, but at least they should be easy to spot.

So, my painfully obvious answer to game selection is: it depends. Whichever table has the most total $$ in the hands of donks is the best.

Re: Game Selection: Money on the table.
 

in my experience deep stacks are often gamblers (LAG). Most LAGs I see in MSNL are pretty bad. short stacks also generally suck. So I guess either one is good. Just watch out for those guys with $150-$300.

These are obviously not strict rules, just general observances.

Re: Game Selection: Money on the table.
 

I suppose it matters how important your hourly rate is to you and how strong a player you see yourself as. I just started playing 2/4 no limit about a week ago, and from my experiences thus far, the lesser the stack, the more green the player. Furthermore, even if the player is solid, chances are he is playing with scared money. What is even nicer is that many of these players will then come back with more $$ after they lose. $100, reload $100, and then maybe throw in $80 for the night. Yes, I've done this. No, it's not the wisest of options. But then again, I'm not the wisest of players.

Now, at these smaller stack tables, the trade off is that the pots aren't going to be that big because a lot of these hands, I find, don't last much longer than after the flop. So, that will probably affect your hourly rate in some significant way; this is so especially if you feel that you can outplay good opponents who like playing big pots through the turn and river.

Every so often in the small stack games, you are able to find a green who comes in with $150 or so and wants to be Phil Ivey. A lot of the time, they think that being Phil Ivey is raising lots of hands preflop. Unfortunately, most of the time, they don't have a [censored] clue what to do once the flop comes out. Some easy money can be made from these guys without signficant risk to your (Ansky's, not necessarily mine) bankroll.

Re: Game Selection: Money on the table.
 

donks can get lucky and get themselves a big stack. don't judge the book by it's cover.

when you hit your big hand and get your chips in the middle do you want your opponent to have a short stack or big stack?

Re: Game Selection: Money on the table.
 

In the example you gave where you have the only full stack and everyone else is $100 the problem of implied odds makes it difficult for you to enter the pot. A $16 bring-in means you are looking at 6-1 implied odds if you hit. Plus when you win a couple of small pots you're up against some really short stacks. These players are subject to shoving pre-flop or shoving the flop with anything.

In a full game you may have to put up with this for a while when a short stack buys in, but they won't be there long. I'm not entering a game unless the table is pretty well stacked.

Re: Game Selection: Money on the table.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose it matters how important your hourly rate is to you and how strong a player you see yourself as. I just started playing 2/4 no limit about a week ago, and from my experiences thus far, the lesser the stack, the more green the player. Furthermore, even if the player is solid, chances are he is playing with scared money. What is even nicer is that many of these players will then come back with more $$ after they lose. $100, reload $100, and then maybe throw in $80 for the night. Yes, I've done this. No, it's not the wisest of options. But then again, I'm not the wisest of players.

Now, at these smaller stack tables, the trade off is that the pots aren't going to be that big because a lot of these hands, I find, don't last much longer than after the flop. So, that will probably affect your hourly rate in some significant way; this is so especially if you feel that you can outplay good opponents who like playing big pots through the turn and river.

Every so often in the small stack games, you are able to find a green who comes in with $150 or so and wants to be Phil Ivey. A lot of the time, they think that being Phil Ivey is raising lots of hands preflop. Unfortunately, most of the time, they don't have a [censored] clue what to do once the flop comes out. Some easy money can be made from these guys without signficant risk to your (Ansky's, not necessarily mine) bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I tend to take the approach that I do. I dont sit down with the max buy in, nor the minimum, usually double the min or half the buy in. If I can project an image of weakness with that alone, good for me, I'll show my strength later, after I've doubled or tripled up.