Game selection- How important for the complete player?

[DarkForceRising]

Obviously, if everyone is as good as or better than said player, it is. But what players who dilligently seek out the games with the biggest VPiP are reporting 5 or 6 BB's per 100 over a significant sample size?

I remember daryn once saying to a poster who claimed to always be watching the lobby, "You do that?". I figured that this meant that if you are a skilled player you can adjust to the conditions and do just as well.

I guess the idea I am positing is this;

You only get so many winners and they only win so much. All the TPTK hands that get run down in a wild game consistently win small pots in tighter games. How you respond in specific situations and hand reading will impact your overall winrate but, ultimately, there is a cap on limit full-ring game profits and, if you are a superior player that can adapt, you won't win any more in laggy or lappy games over the long haul than you will in a weak-tight or an inferior to you taggish game.

Just an idea I've had for some time now. Not married to it so feel free to recommmend that I take a minute out of the day to pull my head out of my ass. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Sasnak]

[ QUOTE ]
feel free to recommmend that I take a minute out of the day to pull my head out of my ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Done.

[k_squared]

there is not some arbitrary limit on how much you can win in a limit game that is predicated by the very fact that it is a limit game. What determines how much you can win is actually a combination of things you control (your adjustments to the players at the table etc.) and things you don't like what cards you get and at what times.

It is true that in a LAGgy game you have to play differently than in a TAGgy game, but it is not true that they are equally profitable. Can you make money playing in both? Depends on how good you are at manipulating your opponents and adjusting to their play... but do you have the same profit potential in both? absolutely NOT... your profit comes from your opponents mistakes, and the more mistakes they make the more profit. Therefore, at a table where you can induce more mistakes, or at least larger mistakes, you win.

-K_squared

[daryn]

i think game selection is one of the most important things a successful poker player should be good at, but only at certain games. sometimes the 100/200 on pokerstars is the best game on the internet (when i am sitting) and sometimes you would be crazy to take a seat. same with the 30/60 but to a lesser degree.

you mention something i said in the past but maybe that was about some smaller stakes game where i believe it matters MUCH less.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Let's put it this way. I don't know if more of my profit comes from game selection, or from every book and post I've ever read on poker.

[Ghazban]

I play mostly 1/2 blind $200 buy-in no-limit and don't worry too much about game selection. I see myself as a student of the game and I want to be able to eventually beat any game anywhere against anybody. Obviously, that's a rather unrealistic goal but that doesn't make it a poor one to pursue.

I don't pick and choose where to sit when I play. I play where there's an opening. If I'm sitting to the right of a smart LAG with a mountain of chips, I use that as a learning experience for how to play best in that situation. If I'm at a table where everybody is tighter than a gnat's ass, I force myself to adjust. I'm certain I could improve my winrate by seeking out juicy games or following fish from table to table but I'm not playing these games purely for the money at this point; I'm playing them to improve so I can move up and, ultimately, make better money in bigger games.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
I play mostly 1/2 blind $200 buy-in no-limit and don't worry too much about game selection. I see myself as a student of the game and I want to be able to eventually beat any game anywhere against anybody. Obviously, that's a rather unrealistic goal but that doesn't make it a poor one to pursue.

I don't pick and choose where to sit when I play. I play where there's an opening. If I'm sitting to the right of a smart LAG with a mountain of chips, I use that as a learning experience for how to play best in that situation. If I'm at a table where everybody is tighter than a gnat's ass, I force myself to adjust. I'm certain I could improve my winrate by seeking out juicy games or following fish from table to table but I'm not playing these games purely for the money at this point; I'm playing them to improve so I can move up and, ultimately, make better money in bigger games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for not ruining my games.

[Hybrid_11]

A good qoute ive seen before that i think applies very well here. I think i saw this on cardplayer but not entirely sure

"You could be the tenth best playyer in the world but if you sit at a table with the top nine your in a lot of trouble"

Table selection is a huge part of the game for reasons the first responder mentioned. The more mistakes your opponents make the more profits you make.

[3N1GM4]

I'm sure that quote is from SS? Or maybe another book, I forget which one though...

[DarkForceRising]

Yeah, I probably did not make the post clear enough but the assumption was that the player in question is the best at the table. Also, even if the game is on the tight side, the players are of the weak tight variety.

What got me thinking about this is that (smaller-stakes, generally) players who employ all the bells and whistles (PT, PV, PE, GT+) and are obsessive about their game selection don't appear to be racking up any unusually high winrates. Furthermore, it also seems that some more talented players who don't bother with all of this are doing just as well- if not better.

Just an anecdotal observation. Kind of like every time I get KK an A flops. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

And for the record, I bail out of rock gardens quickly. The complete player I was referring to is certainly not me.

Thanks for the responses.