Game Selection

[TPL]

This question is an excerpt from a post in my blog titled "The Masturbatory Habits of the Degenerate Poker Player", mostly because I couldn't help myself. I'm posting it here becuase nobody reads my damn blog. ;-)

I play micros, and decided to take a quick shot at the next limit level late tonight when I saw a table with 80% seeing the flop. I quickly realized I was going to be 1-3 in terms of playing ability. I won't get into the details, suffice to say there was big money going in with nothing from over half the table. I was not disappointed and finished up nicely, no pun intended.

My question is this: would you rather have a solid bankroll (200-300BBs) at an average table or a small bankroll at a really juicy table? I know the variance at the juicy can put a real hurting on you, but if you can see after an orbit or two that you're the 1-2 best player at the table, does that mitigate the short bankroll somewhat?

Just something to think about. I know Sklansky provides some direction on game selection, but I haven't gotten that far in TOP and I don't know if he has approached it from this perspective.

Also, in a more general sense, when selecting games, would you rather choose a game based on % seeing the flop, or size of the pot? (No, they are not always the same, although logically you'd think they should be).

Not saying one way is better than the other, I just wanted to get others perspectives on this.

TPL

[77rules]

Bankroll isn't something magic or a hard rule. Nobody will make sure you have it and punish you if you don't. You need about 300 BB's to play at a certain level because sooner or later variance will catch up with you and you'll hit a run of bad cards that'll last anything from a couple of hours to days or even weeks. The 300 BB bankroll means this variance won't break you.

However, what people often forget when talking about a 300 BB bankroll is that it's based on the assumption that you're a winning player. If you're a losing player, it doesn't matter what size bankroll you have, you'll burn through it sooner or later. Another assumption is that there is no easy way for you to replenish the money you've lost through other means. For a professional player playing 15-30 this is probably true, but for somebody playing 0.25/0.50 it's probably not so true. If you have any kind of job and it really is a run of bad cards that busts you, then it's probably easier and faster to work up the 150 bucks then to play micro limits until you have it.

I started playing 0.50/1 long before I had the proper bankroll for it. I got lucky and didn't hit a serious downswing until _after_ I had the proper bankroll.

To answer your question: If I find a really juicy game that I'm confident I can beat and if the size of the game isn't so intimidating that it'll prevent me from playing according to correct strategy, I'll sit down. If I lose more than 30 BB's I'll get up (but that has nothing to do with any particular limit).

[Quercus]

A table with 80% seeing the flop is going to be variance hell. Playing on it for a single session is just a crapshoot. If you've got the bankroll and intestinal fortitude to withstand a significant hit, then playing on the table is sensible (it is +EV, after all).

If losing a big chunk of your bankroll would be a problem, then skip it and wait. Crazy tables will always be around.

As far as game selection goes, I would rather choose a game with weak players, but not so weak as to capture the attention of every 2+2 table selection geek out there.

I know that table selection is the mantra of many at the microlimits, but the games just change too quickly. Sweet games turn rotten, rotten games turn sweet. As long as you don't recognize half the players at the table as strong, just pull up a virtual chair and start playing.

[ccartman2]

I'd agree with you on almost all of this, but I'd love to see a table full of weak players that I've seen before. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Ajax410]

One Saturday night I sat down at a full table of 2/4 with about a 70% of flops seen and a TON of pre-flop raising. I would venture to say that at least 4 of these players were drunk off their asses, and the others were pretty lousy as well.

I planned on playing a typical TAGish game, but the cards were loving me pre-flop, and before long I found myself with hands such as AA (x2), KK (x3), AKs, AKo (x3), and AQs (x2) - these all occuring within the first 50 hands I was at the table.

Long story short, I was ahead in every single hand until the river, and was making value bets like crazy, and did not pick up a single pot. By the end of my first hour at the table, I was down nearly $200.

That being said, I still would love the opportunity to continue playing at that table - eventually, I was going to make money...and I just had to wait out the cold streak.

I think anytime you can situate yourself among bad players, regardless of the limit, it is a winning proposition. Unfortunately, you can go through streaks like these, where you lose 50 BBs in 50 hands, but fortunately, you can win it back just as quickly. While it is important to have a solid bankroll, I have no problem with "taking a stab" at a higher limit if you feel the game is loose on that particular night - just make sure you can afford to take a slightly bigger loss than usual, because the game is likely to be out of control with tons of variance.

So, to get around to answering your questions:

1) I would rather have a small bankroll at a really juicy table, but I would also make sure to play a little more conservatively at first so that, if I did lose, I wouldn't lose everything and would still have an opportunity to play at the loose table.

2) I would rather choose games based on % seeing the flop, because I feel that these games are likely to have the loose-passive players that TAGs thrive on - large pots can be indicative of a TAG fest just as often as not, so I think VPIP% is a more valuable tool for selecting tables.

Alex