Table Selection Online

TeeVeeDude · #1 08-15-2005, 04:14 PM

What criteria do you use to select a table in an online game?

I've been playing the PokerStars .02/.04 tables, and here's what I look for:

1) An almost full table. I have some idea of how to play short-handed, but until I get a little more experience I'd rather avoid it. So I look for tables with 8 or 9 (preferably 9) players before I sit down.

2) A high percentage of players seeing the flop. PokerStars includes this information in the lobby table list, and I think it's much more valuable than the average pot. I never sit at a table where this number is lower than 50%, and I look for the highest number I can find. At the .02/.04 level that's sometimes over 70%, and often between 60-70%.

With a full table and six or seven players seeing every flop, there are a lot of people making mistakes. My own mistakes are minor by comparison, so I can be profitable in spite of my small errors.

MrWookie47 · #2 08-15-2005, 04:21 PM

I don't mean to be rude, but I think this is the 4th (at least) post on this subject in the last week. Grunch and I and a few others like sitting at an empty table. Some datamine for a half hour and then sit at the juicy ones. Some sit at random ones to see what happens. Some couldn't care less about table stats, only their seat realtive to the rocks and fish. If you play good poker, you should be able to beat any table. FMI, just do a quick search for recent posts on the subject.

TeeVeeDude · #3 08-15-2005, 04:23 PM

oops.

I apologize for posting without checking the archives first.

BritNewbie · #4 08-15-2005, 05:22 PM

Your method of table selection looks sound enough to me.

Do you find the lobby stats are fairly accurate at PokerStars? I play mostly at PokerRoom and their stats seem to overstate the number seeing the flop.

numeri · #5 08-15-2005, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you find the lobby stats are fairly accurate at PokerStars? I play mostly at PokerRoom and their stats seem to overstate the number seeing the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
One thing I had to adjust to is the difference between the number seeing the flop and VP$IP. That may account for some of it.

Rev. Good Will · #6 08-15-2005, 06:41 PM

you don't need any table selection skills on stars .02/.04

though table selection skills are important, it should be the last skill you start to develop

TeeVeeDude · #7 08-16-2005, 01:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
you don't need any table selection skills on stars .02/.04

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe yes, maybe no.

It doesn't happen often, but you do sometimes find a table full of rocks even at this level. Yes, one must know how to adjust one's play. One must be able to win even when surrounded by rocks. But it's slow going and grinding out 10 cents per hour isn't much fun.

One doesn't need table selection skills to be a winning player at stars .02/.04, but table selection skills can certainly help maximize one's win rate.

#8 08-16-2005, 01:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you don't need any table selection skills on stars .02/.04

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe yes, maybe no.

It doesn't happen often, but you do sometimes find a table full of rocks even at this level. Yes, one must know how to adjust one's play. One must be able to win even when surrounded by rocks. But it's slow going and grinding out 10 cents per hour isn't much fun.

One doesn't need table selection skills to be a winning player at stars .02/.04, but table selection skills can certainly help maximize one's win rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

no. grinding out in .2/.04 is like torture. Your win rate will not improve substantually (oooo, 1 bb? a robust 4 cents.) if you can't beat the table of 2/4 cents, you shouldn't play. Those tables are worse than play money. Play money people generally know the game somewhat well. if you were serious enough about playing online to deposit, you wouldn't play .02/04.

TeeVeeDude · #9 08-16-2005, 02:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if you were serious enough about playing online to deposit, you wouldn't play .02/04.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's like this. I deposited $25 at Stars to play in the cheap no-limit tournaments. After a few $2 and $3 tournaments I discovered that I suck at no-limit.

My wife responded to my hints and got me SSHE for Father's day, and I had exactly 95 cents in my Stars account. So for the past two months I've been grinding out wins in .02/.04 and currently PT says I'm averaging 8bb/100 hands over about 5,000 hands.

This weekend my account balance hit $20 and I'm now taking a shot at the .05/.10 level.

And I've found that most of the people who make disparaging comments about the players at .02/.04 have never actually PLAYED .02/.04 and don't know what they are talking about.

hoterdoc · #10 11-14-2005, 09:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you find the lobby stats are fairly accurate at PokerStars? I play mostly at PokerRoom and their stats seem to overstate the number seeing the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
One thing I had to adjust to is the difference between the number seeing the flop and VP$IP. That may account for some of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

is the only difference between the two (VP$IP and #players seeing the flop): that the Big Blind (in an unraised pot) increases the VPIP by one?

i play 2/4 limit on party, and it seems that there are:
a few vpip tables of 18% or so,
a lot in the 20 to 30 range,
and some in the 30 to 40 range,
and scant in the >40% range.

I am trying to work on learning table selection, and am new to pokertracker and pokerace HUD.

right now, i am datamining 10 tables (2-4 party), and the vpip range goes from 17% to 32%. how well does this reflect the tables mentioned earlier in the thread above?

the tables mentioned above in the thread, where folks have tables of 70 to 80% seeing a flop, is this a creature of only nano-limits like .02-.04, etc?

thanks,
slow-wittedly,

doc