A table full of Pamela Andersons

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]
Of these 2 tables which would you join and why?
Table A 2/4
seat 1 -175
seat 2 - 85
seat 3 - 96
seat 4 - 36
seat 5 - 48
seat 6 - 76
seat 7 - open
seat 8 - 24
seat 9 -110
seat 10- 44


Table B 2/4
seat 1 - 96
seat 2 - 244
seat 3 - 178
seat 4 - 114
seat 5 - 156
seat 6 - 238
seat 7 - open
seat 8 - 437
seat 9 - 134
seat 10- 68

[/ QUOTE ]

Table A. With three players playing below 12BB's you know they're bad and likely to tilt off their stack before they leave.

rmarotti-
While you sound like an expert player and one quite capable of juggling several thoughts at once, I fear that you may have missed the jist of the post. Which simply was, how much does the average size of chip stacks at any given table affect your decision on whether or not to join said table.

[callmedonnie]

online i usually have stats and don't base my decision on stacks. the trend i have found is online people will bust and usually leave.

at a casino, i have seen people bust, rebuy, bust, rebuy, etc for a rather long time. at a casino, i prefer the small stacks. unless the table w/ more $ looks so bad that i start drooling.

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
fairly awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

This phrase has been patented. I expect royalties.

[rmarotti]

I didn't miss your point. My answer was (and is reiterated a little more clearly here): it doesn't affect my decision and it shouldn't affect yours

[roundhouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't miss your point. My answer was (and is reiterated a little more clearly here): it doesn't affect my decision and it shouldn't affect yours

[/ QUOTE ]

I respectfully disagree. I'll look out for abnormally high or low stacks. Sure, luck is the largest determiner of what happens to a man's stack in the course of a single session, but in my experience

1) Someone with a small stack is more likely (than an averagely stacked contemporary) to be either a poor player and / or on tilt.

2) Someone with a particulary large stack is more likely (than an averagely stacked contemporary) to be either loose & lucky and / or overly confident following a recent rush.

Of course I'm going to have to watch them play (or refer to PT stats) to firm up suspicions about individual players, but in the absence of any other information I'll sit at the table of extreme stacks.

RH

[rmarotti]

[ QUOTE ]
(or refer to PT stats)


[/ QUOTE ]

This should be the factor that determines where you sit. I understand what everyone is saying about stack sizes but it is not an accurate measure in any reliable way of the quality of the player. Datamined stats and observation of play are.

[roundhouse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(or refer to PT stats)


[/ QUOTE ]

This should be the factor that determines where you sit. I understand what everyone is saying about stack sizes but it is not an accurate measure in any reliable way of the quality of the player. Datamined stats and observation of play are.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's stating the obvious, and I won't disagree. However, I don't have the luxury of having PT stats on all my potential opponents (though I take the lack of my having stats on someone as a good sign).

But in the absence of any other information which of two players would you rather sit with, the one with 10BB, or the one with 50BB?

RH

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a possible reflection of their success/failure as a poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I always buy in for $10k whenever playing .5/1.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

only 10K? I like to sit with 15K. takes me a little longer to bust.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a possible reflection of their success/failure as a poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I always buy in for $10k whenever playing .5/1.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

only 10K? I like to sit with 15K. takes me a little longer to bust.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm a better player than you.