On Table Selection

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
(In quotes to seperate the introduction from the body.) This guide turned about to be a bit more "basic" than I originally intended (and probably to the disappointment of some). But downtime at Party let me finish earlier than originally promised. So there's a positive and a negative. There are some specifics that I really can't get into (promise to a mentor of mine). But if you have any questions, please ask them and I'll do my best to answer them (and incorporate them into future editions). Also, if there's anything I left out, let me know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many players, after studying their books religiously, posting hands in the forums, and responding to other hands still feel like their win rate is not up to 2+2 standards. Some continue playing at a less than optimal win rate, yet others get frustrated and back out of poker altogether. Frustrated players can usually avoid these tragedies by practicing meticulous table selection.

Picking the table with the highest average pot and an open seat generally will not yield a good table. Rather, looking at the players at the table, instead of the average pot, is best. (Furthermore, the average pot statistic listed is sometimes not accurate as it is calculated by averaging a span of hands, and tables online generally have high turnover rates.) A good table generally includes several loose passive opponents and several loose aggressive opponents. Loose passive players are excellent opponents because they will frequently pay off your big hands by calling all of your bets. Value betting against these opponents moreover provides much of your total table equity. Loose aggressive players act in almost the opposite way as loose passive opponents. However, both player types will add to your total equity in similar ways. Loose aggressive opponents frequently get out of line pre flop, allowing you to isolate and take advantage of their main leak, playing too many hands too aggressively.

Thus, when opening tables, look for players against whom you would like to play. Whether you use a HUD (like PlayerView or GameTime+) or exported PokerTracker notes, determining what kind of opponents are at a specific table is paramount to adding to your win rate. An important concept that is frequently overlooked is the presence of tight aggressive players. If your current table selection method is looking for openings at the highest average pot tables, doesn't it follow that the significant minority of tight aggressive players are doing the same thing? Furthermore, a large pot table is not always a bunch of loose aggressive players slugging it out. There are often tight aggressive players that are 3-betting to isolate and pumping draws. Thus, those high pot tables might have an unprofitable mix of tight aggressive opponents that are isolating the loose aggressive players. Start looking elsewhere for poor opponents; they're out there waiting for you to take their money.

After finding a good table with a couple loose passives, several loose aggressives, and no tight aggressives, your table selection process does not stop, however. Seat selection is probably just as important as table selection. If you have 3 100/100 opponents at the table, but you're not in a position in which you can control the table, you are totally ineffective. A concept that 2+2 books love to drill in to their books is that acting last is good. This cannot be emphasized too much. In general, you want to sit to the left of loose aggressive players so that you can have position on them and raise to isolate. On a similar note, you want to have tighter players on your left. Tighter players are less likely to cold call and less likely to cap the betting. Thus, if you 3-bet to isolate a maniac on your right, you can act last. Acting last and isolating weak and poor players gives you the best situation for being able to control the table, which is the ultimate goal.



Where is the optimal seat?



Where is the optimal seat?

[PJM1206]

This all sounds good but how practical is this? Unless you have some valid numbers on the players you are no better off than using the table stats in the lobby area. I have found that the short-term stats of players can be very decieving. What you think is passive could be a long run of bad cards and conversly what you think is aggressive may very well be a good run of cards. Point being that unless you have at least a couple 100 hands it all interesting at best.

Second: You can spend a lot of time chasing tables and not palying. Players are in and out so frequently the table make up changes all the time.

Third: Often the tables are full so.... how long are you willing to wait to find the magic table? Never mind the seat selection.

I may be the only one that feels this way but..... I think it is just as easy to adapt to palying styles than it is to hunt for a decent tables

[closer2313]

Really good post! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I have a question though. Is there anyway to bring up stats on players with out sitting down at the table, besides bringing them up manually?

When I use GT+ with PT, I have to actually sit down at the table and start to play and then load the current session into GT+ to bring up the stats. Is there an easier way to do this?

Thanks!

[Disconnected]

This is good stuff. On the first table, the optimal (open) seat is to the left of the 30/5/2.1 guy. On the second, it's to the left of the 64/1/0.5 guy.

A couple other things about having loose passives on your right is that no only will you have position on them, but you won't have to defend blinds as often if they are not raising as much pre-flop. As far as having tight players on your left (whether passive or aggressive) is that even if you're not raising pre-flop, you have a chance to effectively have the button more than once per orbit, and blind stealing is easier the tighter they are (of course if they're aggressive, they may make you uncomfortable as they defend their blinds).

+fav

nh.

[Vote4Pedro]

On GT+, replace your name w/ someones name at the table and everything pops up

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
This all sounds good but how practical is this?

[/ QUOTE ]

This guide (minus basically one major thing) is the way I have gone from .5/1 to 3/6 short in 8 months, winning a lot of money at each level (granted 2/4 took a bit longer than most).

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you have some valid numbers on the players you are no better off than using the table stats in the lobby area.

[/ QUOTE ]

False.

[ QUOTE ]
I have found that the short-term stats of players can be very decieving. What you think is passive could be a long run of bad cards and conversly what you think is aggressive may very well be a good run of cards. Point being that unless you have at least a couple 100 hands it all interesting at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you may technically be correct about stats not having much meaning until thousands of hands, there is no practical way to have this information (besides PokerEdge). You have what you have and making the most of that information is a key tenet of expert play.

[ QUOTE ]
Second: You can spend a lot of time chasing tables and not palying. Players are in and out so frequently the table make up changes all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you could spend a few extra minutes looking for tables and make more money.

[ QUOTE ]
Third: Often the tables are full so.... how long are you willing to wait to find the magic table? Never mind the seat selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting my first table open can take 1 minute or 30 minutes. I'm a patient guy. I'm going to win more money at better tables.

[ QUOTE ]
I may be the only one that feels this way but..... I think it is just as easy to adapt to palying styles than it is to hunt for a decent tables

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to adapt to playing styles at every table. Enjoy passing blinds back and forth with 2+2ers.

[MrWookie47]

This is a good article with good information. I think, though, that I'll offer a different method of table selection. I took GrunchCan's advice to just try sitting down at an empty table. I was skeptical (a) that it would get players in a reasonable amount of time, and (b) that those players would suck. It turns out that both (a) and (b) are true, generally. The table fills up with random party donks looking for action, which is much better than getting in line for a table behind a bunch of multitabling TAGs and bonuswhores. You should be somewhat comfortable with SH play, but you're probably still better at HUSH play than the first 3 people who sit down with you. You don't get to have much control over seat selection, however. Fortunately, I don't need it all that much.

Seat selection is one of the reasons why I like Absolute for 6 max play, actually. They have all 9 seats available for sitting, but only allow 6 people to sit. When you're looking at a table with "one" seat free, you get to choose from 4 seats, allowing you to get the weak tightie on your left every single time.

[Redd]

Dude, I know people like to fix their party background so there's no players or dealers, but don't you think you're taking things a little too far?

[istewart]

Hey shadow,

Good post, but moreso regarding seat selection -- something I've been having trouble with as of late (i.e. I'm constantly isolating/opening in the CO and getting called by the 45/1 button). Definitely something I'm trying to work on. Party doesn't make it easy (not allowing you to change seats). [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]