On seat selection and table-dependent adjustments.
 

On seat selection and table-dependent adjustments.

I’ve been seeing a lot of threads like this one recently posted when people feel like complaining. Saying things like “I can’t find a table with XX VPIP” or “man the tables suck right now, it’s hard to find tables where the VPIP is over YY.” This goes along with the oft-repeated, never-true mantra that games like the Party $1/2 and $3/6 or Party $5/10 aren’t beatable for much because they’re “full of rocks.”

I know where you guys are coming from. Trust me. It’s fun to find a table full of 50% VPIP players where you can limp 98s UTG and not sweat it. It’s fun to play drawing hands wherever you can and not have to worry about HU or 3-way situations where your hands have to be better to have a hope of standing up. But unless you plan on playing .5/1 or 2/4 forever (and I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with that), the games won’t always be that good. More importantly, though, you’re all missing something when you’re making these posts: seat selection.

Seat selection is one of the areas where I see a lot of 2+2ers who could otherwise be very successful lacking. When you’re playing full ring and you’ve got a 21/12 player on your right, I hope you’re prepared to start folding. A lot. Because unless you’re willing to 3-bet light in smaller pots – and you should occasionally be – you’re going to be getting your Button stolen all the time, and won’t be playing nearly as many hands as you’d like. There are ways to adjust against this sort of player, but in general, if he plays decently postflop, you’re going to be putting yourself at a lot of risk at a table that generally isn’t worthwhile. It’s going to take a very good table for me to want to sit on the left of a good aggressive player.

On the other hand, if I have a handful of mediocre but maybe somewhat tight player on my right – let’s say they’re a mixed bag of 25-30VPIP players – but I have a few 14/9 players on my left, I’m in a very good spot, especially when the players on your right are predictable. As much as I’d love for them to be 50/2/.5 (loose-passive-predictable), that isn’t going to happen all the time. But I really don’t mind a table where the players on my right are meh, but the players on my left are super tight. What that effectively says to me is that when it’s folded to me in MP2+, my raising range is HUGE. When I’m in the hijack, I can and often do raise almost any vaguely playable hand (this includes random trash like 97s/86s and good hands like PP’s 55+, suited Aces, most unsuited Aces, lots of stuff basically). If my image is bad and anyone is catching on, I slow down for a bit, but I will still generally be a hyperLAG in these situations, and it really is profitable. By the time that people start to pick up on it and start to play back, you can adjust your play accordingly – and you’ve consequently adjusted the table’s play enough that a table which was tight and blasé before is now featuring larger pots. Consider it a subtle form of table tilt.

I’m not trying to transform a generation of nits or players who learn that “tight is right” into a LAG here, even though that can be very fun. I am, however, trying to challenge you all to stop thinking that because your $3/6 table is supersuper tight, that you aren’t going to win much. It simply isn’t true. But those of you who are constantly complaining about this really need to consider the adjustments you can make to turn an unprofitable situation into a profitable one.

One thing that is important to note about the style of play I’m advocating is that it will also force you to make more marginal decisions postflop – especially once people have started to pick up on your tendencies. You’re going to be in some spots that are tough, when you’re holding 97s 3-ways for 3-bets, but all isn’t lost. When you take this hand to showdown and win, I can guarantee you that the next time that you raise 66 in MP and flop AT6 against a PF 3-bet, you’re gonna get your money’s worth out of AK.

Anyway. Just a little friendly rambling from your neighborhood lucksack monkeyraffe.

Rob

Re: On seat selection and table-dependent adjustments.
 

Nice post. Seat selection is indeed important.

Exactly where one draws the line between good seat/bad table, bad seat/good table, is tough, and i don't think there is any consensus or hard and fast rule, but they are two considerations to be aware of when playing

Re: On seat selection and table-dependent adjustments.
 

I shared this with Ent in IRC and I'll share it here.

As I've discussed elsewhere, my motivations and goals for playing are different than others. I'm not always out chasing the most EV situations and trying to make the most money possible. A lot of why I play is about learning and having fun.

One of the things that I tend to do is to ignore these things to some extent. I'll take an open seat at whatever table that's highest on the avg pot list and play there for most of my session unless it's just horrible.

My thought here is that because of Ent's second point, that you HAVE to adjust to the texture of your table and the players that you have position on and that have position on you, learning how to make these adjustments is key. So sometimes I'm not in the best seat at the best table, but I'm learning how to find ways to make that work for me.

If you're playing to pay the rent, and have to maximize EV at every step, table selection and seat position are huge. That's one of the big lessons I learned in my failed attempt to be that kind of player. However, at some point there's something to be said for taking the time to develop the skills that will help you be a better player in higher games, and I think sometimes that kind of learning can get lost in the quest for dollars that some of the folks in the forum are on.

Re: On seat selection and table-dependent adjustments.
 

I think predictablitly is the key for staying at a lot of tightish tables.

If you are at a table with many tightish, not overly aggressive players, you have a edge because hand reading will be much easier.

When I am at a table and the last obvious donk leaves, I don't mind staying on, if the pre-flop aggression is low and the post flop play is straightforward. Such a table might be full of folks who look like this 14-22% VPIP/ 4-7% PFR/ .5-1.5 Aggression. You can make a nice (though unspectacular) low risk earn at these tables.

Re: On seat selection and table-dependent adjustments.
 

Stop clueing in 2+2'ers on how to easily increase their winrate entity, jeez.

-SmileyEH

Re: On seat selection and table-dependent adjustments.
 

[ QUOTE ]

Seat selection is one of the areas where I see a lot of 2+2ers who could otherwise be very successful lacking. When you’re playing full ring and you’ve got a 21/12 player on your right, I hope you’re prepared to start folding. A lot. Because unless you’re willing to 3-bet light in smaller pots – and you should occasionally be – you’re going to be getting your Button stolen all the time, and won’t be playing nearly as many hands as you’d like. There are ways to adjust against this sort of player, but in general, if he plays decently postflop, you’re going to be putting yourself at a lot of risk at a table that generally isn’t worthwhile. It’s going to take a very good table for me to want to sit on the left of a good aggressive player.


[/ QUOTE ]

Something about the specifics of this scenario bothers me. If you were both playing in a vaccum, this would have the results that you say. But I would say this seating arrangement is less desireable for the good aggressive player on your right, than it is for you. He is faced with the prospect of playing hands OOP against an aggressive, har to read player. Also many of the hands, you will be forced to dump, are going to be of the marginal tricky to play variety. So I think at a otherwise decent table, you are probably still better off than you are at most other tables.

Unless he plays markedly better than you post-flop, he is taking the worst of it. In my experience, it does not take many light 3-bets or marginal calldowns, to make the good aggressive player switch gears...or to keep him inline so to speak. Also if he fails to adjust to you, chances are he will be the one doing the bleeding.

I agree at an otherwise marginal table, this is not worth the effort. But I also don't really think the game needs to be "very good" to make the situation more profitable than the average table.

Re: On seat selection and table-dependent adjustments.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Seat selection is one of the areas where I see a lot of 2+2ers who could otherwise be very successful lacking. When you’re playing full ring and you’ve got a 21/12 player on your right, I hope you’re prepared to start folding. A lot. Because unless you’re willing to 3-bet light in smaller pots – and you should occasionally be – you’re going to be getting your Button stolen all the time, and won’t be playing nearly as many hands as you’d like. There are ways to adjust against this sort of player, but in general, if he plays decently postflop, you’re going to be putting yourself at a lot of risk at a table that generally isn’t worthwhile. It’s going to take a very good table for me to want to sit on the left of a good aggressive player.


[/ QUOTE ]

Something about the specifics of this scenario bothers me. If you were both playing in a vaccum, this would have the results that you say. But I would say this seating arrangement is less desireable for the good aggressive player on your right, than it is for you. He is faced with the prospect of playing hands OOP against an aggressive, har to read player. Also many of the hands, you will be forced to dump, are going to be of the marginal tricky to play variety. So I think at a otherwise decent table, you are probably still better off than you are at most other tables.

Unless he plays markedly better than you post-flop, he is taking the worst of it. In my experience, it does not take many light 3-bets or marginal calldowns, to make the good aggressive player switch gears...or to keep him inline so to speak. Also if he fails to adjust to you, chances are he will be the one doing the bleeding.

I agree at an otherwise marginal table, this is not worth the effort. But I also don't really think the game needs to be "very good" to make the situation more profitable than the average table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that, on the average, you will be forced to 3-bet many more marginal hands than most people are comfortable with, and even then, will be losing enough opportunities to play hands that would otherwise be able to show an easy profit.

I also think -- and this is just from my experience playing in 10/20SH -- that the game will have to be quite good to offset the disadvantage you will have. You aren't simply going to be able to run a good player over postflop by 3-betting marginal hands all the time, and unless you're running hot, you won't be getting the hands that are easy "light" 3-bets often enough to make up for the disadvantage you get of having almost every one of your blinds raised -- rarely being able to play the SB, BB, or Button.

Rob

Re: On seat selection and table-dependent adjustments.
 

Amen!

Here's an example of mine from last night...

I was at a table last night that seat selection ruined an othewise juicy table with three loose passives and a couple weak tight rocks. I had simply the worst seat at a decent table.

Here was the layout....

My 60/3/.0001 "buddy" was on my immediate left and three 20/12/2-3ish guys were to my immediate right (I find at least one or two of these guys at almost every high average pot table so I'm not able to simply avoid them these days, though 3 in a row should have had me running for the hills ASAP.) There were two other semi-loose passive guys to the right of the TAG's mixed in with some weak tight rocks.

Here I was innocently trying to milk my "buddy" for all that he was worth and these TAG's to my right had to ruin everything. I played very few pots because the TAG's took turns isolating the semi-loose guys and stealing blinds. Meanwhile I never got to steal the blinds of the rocks or even buy the button as my "buddy" called every raise. I always seemed to be made to defend my blinds and get into uncomfortable situations repeatedly against this murderers row of TAG's. It sucked.

Due to the table being looser than my other tables I stayed longer than I should have but found it very tough to come out ahead in that spot and I eventually decided to leave after managing a slim profit aftr having a couple PP's stand up for me.

Re: On seat selection and table-dependent adjustments.
 

Didn't bisonbison already make this post?

Re: On seat selection and table-dependent adjustments.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't bisonbison already make this post?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. Probably?