Picking tables..

[Soggy Salmon]

I agree with the original post. I did the same thing most of the time playing the .5/1 tables. I sat at any table and stayed there. Even when it became short-handed and even to heads-up. The only time I left because of the other players was when it was down to 3 people and it was obvious they were completely outplaying me and tearing me up. But I still hung out there for a little while just for the learning experience.

I think it has helped my game a lot. There is no question that playing at really tight .5/1 tables has helped prepare me for 1/2 which is much much tighter. Also, I honestly think my game is starting to change to adapt to table conditions without me thinking about it too much now.

Just last night I was thinking about this. I was wondering what another player at the table thought of me. I was at two tables and he was at both of them also. At one, there were a bunch of players who would see the flop and call down with anything. The other table was mostly a bunch of rocks. I was playing two completely different styles. I was curious what his read on me was. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Of course table selection is important. And I can definitely see the differences in my bankroll when I am at a "good" table. But I am not too concerned with profits until I reach 2/4. So until then, I will keep playing at the first table open. It's good to be able to play at any kind of table.

[bisonbison]

Guys, I'm not saying that you should avoid good players like the plague that they are. I'm saying that you should always have in the back of your mind the idea that certain table textures are simply not very profitable.

If you are conscientious about picking tables that have loose and passive players or easy to read maniacs or someone obviously on tilt, then you will run into (and learn to deal with) every kind of table, because there may be other good players there, because the lineup will change or because even unskilled players vary their play depending on their mood.

We all want to learn, and the people at non-party micros may indeed have an early learning advantage on those at .5/1 party who can bask in the mythical loose/passiveness, but game selection is also a skill, and one that you can and should practice.

[kenewbie]

I don't think any of us really disagree here.

Table selection is a skill ofcourse, and a very important one when you are out to earn money I'm sure. Then again it is hardly as complicated as the game itself.

If you have a very limited bankroll while you're learning I guess it would become a real issue (ie a post of $50 is all you have to work with at 0.5/1).

I like it when my table becomes complicated though, all the maniacs (which can be tricky imo) and the people who are just outplaying the entire table has thought me a lot of things. I'm happy I had the lesson while it was inexpensive.

I sit happily at the odd thight/agressive table at 0.5/1 and take it as a challenge. I think I have improved my abillity to read hands plentyfold at these.

And ofcourse, noone is advocating leaving the table as soon as a single threat comes, I realize that. I guess its just that I do almost the opposite. I welcome the opposition with open arms while it is still cheap.

I guess whatever works for you is ok.

k

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Lately I've read a lot on this forums about "picking the right table" (especially from bison?).

Is this really good advice to a new player? Personaly I sit down at a table and only leave if it becomes short-handed. I dont care if the people there are eating me up. This is micro-limit, I'm here to learn not to earn money. Yes I'm building a bankroll to go to higher limits, but more importantly I play to improve my game.

While I understand the reasons for scouting out a nice table when you are in the moneymaking business I think people who are still just learning the ropes will improve a lot faster if they dont jump tables until they find one they can beat.

Thoughts?

k

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wondering about what this "till they find one that they can beat" means. They stop at a table where they win a few pots or one where, even if losing, the game texture is favorable to them?

Table texture is an important part of play. I understand the concern about learning, but I guarantee you that if your goal is to move up to mid-limits (say 5/10) Over the tens or hundreds of thousands of hands it'll take to do that you'll get plenty of experience in all types of game conditions even if you spend a lot of attention to table selection.

But table texture is important, like I say. It's a large factor in how well you do, it determines what kinds of hands you can play, and, in my view, ultimately how much fun you have. I don't know about finding the tables that you can beat, but I do think its important to find the tables that who's texture give you the best chance of winning and/or the most enjoyable playing experience.

Hold em is a game of patience and waiting...how sucky is it to be at a table where, after all your discipline of waiting for premium hands, mucking all those marginal holding in Ep, folding those otherwise playable hands because of a raise, missing your flops and having the discipline not to chase, that when you do hit say top pair, top kicker and only one person calls your PF raise and he folds to your flop bet... and if that's a common occurance, I would suggest that the benefit from learning how to play here isn't nearly as significant as the increased liklihood that you will lose, or win less AND have a lousy time doing it.

Look you want to be able to play 55 in Mp after one limper? Isn't it nice to be at a table where you can do that rather than one that you can't? How about A-x in late position, wouldn't you rather be at a table where most of the time you get 4-5 limpers rather than a raiser and one or two calls? Its not hard to learn how to play those hands at tables where the conditions aren't right--they hit the muck. Big learning experience there...

One of the things I don't like about party is that they don't give you the percentage of players seeing the flop. Even if you watch an orbit or two it can be hard to figure that out accurately (and who wants to spend twenty minutes watching a table to try and figure out if its any good?. And percentage of players seeing the flop, in conjunction with pot size, gives you a decent (not perfect) picture of the table texture.

As to skill...well I saw this old thread on rgp involving Sklansky, D. Negraneau, and Dolye Brunson about the relative skills of high stakes players and mid limit (the were talking 80/160 kinds of mid limits--which shows what a different world they liven in) and this side argument kept breaking out about what makes a player.

Some posters felt that playing ability is inextricably bound to game selection. In their view, a player, who we somehow "knew" had incredibly skills at the table but always sought out the most challenging games, looking to play against players who were better than him and thus won very little or even lost money would be a worse poker player than one who, while his at the table skill might be far inferior to the first player, always played at the right tables and thus won far more money.

Although I think this is a ridiculous view myself, as one person pointed out, it means that a player who could only beat her drunk grandfather but who only played her drunk grandfather and took him for hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, would be a better player than the 10th best player in the world who only played when the other nine better players were at his table, and thus lost money over the course of time. It does point up the importance of game selection, and I would point out that game selection is something harped on by just about every writer on the game you will ever read, and by the best players in the world as well. Its nothing to look down upon certainly.

--Zetack

[StellarWind]

One idea that has been creeping into this thread is that the primary idea behind game selection is to avoid facing good players.

No! No! No! Good players don't matter. They don't play many hands and I don't play many hands. We hardly interact with each other.

Bad players matter. A table is good if it has at least a couple of really loose bad players. Once you have that it doesn't matter much whether the rest of the table is good, mediocre, or somewhat poor.

This means that there is no serious conflict between playing good tables and playing with strong players. In fact, an effective way to find good players is to sit at a juicy table and wait for them to arrive.

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
While I understand the reasons for scouting out a nice table when you are in the moneymaking business I think people who are still just learning the ropes will improve a lot faster if they dont jump tables until they find one they can beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

kenewbie,

This is an excellent point and I absolutely agree. In fact, I think this is one of the major reasons why many players on this forum never move beyond the low-limits. Here's the thing: any low-limit online game is going to be very beatable. And at these limits, who gives a damn if you're beating the game for 1.7 BB/hr or 3 BB/hr. Your real goal at this level is to gain experience and develop a skill set that will help you move to the next level (and win along the way, of course). That won't happen if you constantly sit with people who don't know how to defend themselves.

I experienced this for a long time after I quit my job to play cards. I expended a lot of effort looking for the softest servers, games, etc. Eventually, I realized how pathetic that was and decided to clean up my game, sit with tough players, and work my way up the limits. It was sink or swim for me. Luckily, I quickly learned the strokes for the new game.

Most players are in the fortunate position that they don't depend on their poker winnings for income. Accordingly, they should constantly be looking to challenge themselves, to learn new moves, to play with players who are better than them. That's right, I'm saying it. At least at low-limits, you should spend a good deal of time playing against people who have an edge over you (of course, not so much time that your overall win rate is negative). Experience is by far the greatest tool for learning.

I respect you for making this argument. And I wish you luck in your quest to move up. Given your attitude, I imagine it will go quite well.

The Bear