Table selection related to Irieguys post

[apd138]

Irieguy stated that he had to skip several $33's becuase they had too many pros. My question is how many pros at a table is too many? Lets assume most of the players who you don't consider dangerous are unknown party players.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
Irieguy stated that he had to skip several $33's becuase they had too many pros. My question is how many pros at a table is too many? Lets assume most of the players who you don't consider dangerous are unknown party players.

[/ QUOTE ]

3 is too many (not including you)

But every pro on your table hurts a little bit, just play the best games you can without hurting your $/hour too much.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Irieguy stated that he had to skip several $33's becuase they had too many pros. My question is how many pros at a table is too many? Lets assume most of the players who you don't consider dangerous are unknown party players.

[/ QUOTE ]


3 is too many (not including you)

But every pro on your table hurts a little bit, just play the best games you can without hurting your $/hour too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in my opinion, it's a little more complicated than that.

If a player is a pro, and I know that, I don't mind sitting to their right as long as they don't know me (which is sometimes possible since I play under several different accounts.)

If they do know me, I don't mind sitting to their immediate left if I think I rate to know how to counter their adjustment to me better than they can adjust to me (if that makes sense.)

In both of these situations I feel that I am better off than I would be playing against a random player.

So, if I can't position myself appropriately relative to the pro, I may pass on a table due to a single other player.

On the other hand, there are some players who are very good with their non-exploitable game, but don't know or don't care how to adjust to the exploitable tendancies of others. With these players, I don't need to worry about my position, and their predictability comes in very handy on the bubble... allowing me to adjust my play greatly because I know exactly what they will be doing.

Lastly, if the player is both experienced AND good I would just avoid him all together no matter what. Fortunately, a lot of the best SNG players right now are young and do not have enough experience or flexibility in their game to be able to exploit the adjustments that I think I could make against them. They've never needed to be able to do this because they can just play tic-tac-toe for $100/hr. I don't mind playing at the same table with these players, especially if I know they are playing 6 or more tables. A player like Daliman, however, would be a different story. He has enough experience to be able to make adjustments not only within a SNG, but within a particular hand based on how he thought I may be thinking that he would be playing.

But the bottom line is the zero-sum nature of a SNG. If a player is a 40% ITMer, you don't want to be at that table if you can help it unless there's reason to believe that he will change his game in such a way vs. you that he becomes worse than a 40% ITMer.... or if you could use his non-exploitable play as a weapon by proxy to help extract additional dollars from poor playing opponents(a topic perhaps worthy of its own thread some day.)

Irieguy

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]


If a player is a pro, and I know that, I don't mind sitting to their right as long as they don't know me . . .
If they do know me, I don't mind sitting to their immediate left if I think I rate to know how to counter their adjustment to me better than they can adjust to me (if that makes sense.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it that in one case you prefer to be acting predominantly behind the other person, and in the other case to have them generally acting behind you? Most of the time I like to sit as close as possible to the immediate left of players I respect so that I have position on them most of the time. I suppose it can make BB play slightly more painful, but that depends on the player; against players I considered tight immediate left would probably be a bonus there, too.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


If a player is a pro, and I know that, I don't mind sitting to their right as long as they don't know me . . .
If they do know me, I don't mind sitting to their immediate left if I think I rate to know how to counter their adjustment to me better than they can adjust to me (if that makes sense.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it that in one case you prefer to be acting predominantly behind the other person, and in the other case to have them generally acting behind you? Most of the time I like to sit as close as possible to the immediate left of players I respect so that I have position on them most of the time. I suppose it can make BB play slightly more painful, but that depends on the player; against players I considered tight immediate left would probably be a bonus there, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is a battle for the blinds.

Irieguy

[gumpzilla]

Well, yes, but you can still battle for the blinds even when you haven't posted them. Your opponent to your left is going to have a positional advantage on you on any hand you both play where you're not the button, and is going to probably be more inclined to defend his BB than Joe Random, which I'm guessing is probably not what you want (but perhaps I'm wrong). So it's not clear to me what you gain by sitting to his right.

[Elektrik]

[ QUOTE ]
If they do know me, I don't mind sitting to their immediate left if I think I rate to know how to counter their adjustment to me better than they can adjust to me (if that makes sense.)

In both of these situations I feel that I am better off than I would be playing against a random player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gotta admit Irie, I'm not understanding why you'd ever want to sit to my left, OR how you'd be better off with me there than against a random player.

[johnny005]

I have a question about table selection.
I play the 20's right now 4 tabling, should I be using table selection here. from what i've noticed the tables fill up way to quick to even think about it let alone actually try and look up the players on PT prophecy.
So the question for everyone is, What methods do you use for table selection? Do you keep notes on all players while you are playing, I find it a bit hard to do while 4 tabling, but I think I might start scince I can see it will help me if I'm running across the same players.

[Freudian]

The most practical way is to only add notes to good players. That way you will see the little icon in the bottom left corner by their name when you sit down. Too many icons and you might want to skip that game.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
The most practical way is to only add notes to good players. That way you will see the little icon in the bottom left corner by their name when you sit down. Too many icons and you might want to skip that game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey that's a damn good idea!