Table Selection / Short Stacks

[amead]

Greetings...

I've been giving some thought lately to my personal table selection process, and was wondering how other people go about a couple things. I'm a 100NL player currently, but I've been doing this sort of thing from the 25NL days. Note that I play exclusively 6-max, but I'm not sure if this changes things.

When I look for a table, I'll always try to sit at one where I'll immediately be the big stack. At 100NL, my dream table has a most folks around 50-80$, with one or two perhaps with a short stack in the 20$ neighborhood.

Now, this seems counter-intuitive to the "more money at the table, more money for your pocket" theory, which is where I start to falter.

What I've found is twofold:

1. Players with short stacks are often very weak. Certainly this isn't always true, as everyone takes a beat or a downswing once in a while, but I feel that someone sitting at a 100NL table with 25$ just can't be that great, as they'd most likely be inclined to rebuy.

2. Players with short stacks go all-in with relatively weak holdings relatively frequently. This could be attributed to tilt, as they could have taken some beats to get their short stack, but I find it very common that someone with 20$ behind them will call a 4$ PF raise and then go all-in with any piece of the flop. As a result, my big card raising hands make more than they often would (win a small pot, lose a big one, etc.)

Because of this, I find myself making some good profit from those short stacked players and small stacked tables.

On the other hand, I can see that I miss out on some value on those times when I could catch a set vs. set double from a full stack.

So, aside from fostering general discussion of table selection in terms of stack size, I'd be curious what other people look for in a good table. It seems obvious to look for tables with lots of money in play and very large pots, but for the style of play I often use (admittedly weaktight) this isn't always the best (or is it?).

[-Skeme-]

I hate short stacks with a passion.

[amead]

Doh. It figures that one of the more respected and presumably solid players immediately disagrees with me, hehe.

Do you hate the extra variance and extra irrationality of their play?

[Go_Blue88]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate short stacks with a passion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just going to say this exact same statement except i was going to say: i [censored] hate shortstacks.

[guaranteedBluff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate short stacks with a passion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll never play at a table if 2 or more people have less than 40% of the buyin.

[IamLeach]

LMAO. I see your point about playing with short stacks. I am only at the 25 NL level and seem to encounter sort stacks often. The thing I really look for in a table are People that I have notes on and tables with High average pots. I seem to get myself into trouble with tables that have more "rocky" type players because i get really agressive and end up making bad plays and bluff far too much,( a leak on my part ) where as at tables with other agg players I have less tendencies to get crazy. This seems to be more lucrative.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
So, aside from fostering general discussion of table selection in terms of stack size, I'd be curious what other people look for in a good table. It seems obvious to look for tables with lots of money in play and very large pots, but for the style of play I often use (admittedly weaktight) this isn't always the best (or is it?).

[/ QUOTE ]

I look for a high average pot size.

In a 6max table, I actually look to be the smallest stack at the table. This suggests that the other players have been moving chips around and are willing to go to the felt. In addition, many deep-stacked players will be willing to call an all-in from a "short stack" who sits down with the table max.

Also and very importantly at $100max and below, often the tall stack is not the best player at the table. At a table full of 6 bad players, one of the lucky gamblers is going to have all of the chips. That doesn't mean he's good, it means he's ready to lose his chips to you.

To the other posters: I hate shortstacks too.

They reduce your effective stack size, so you're playing a 50 or 60 BB game and don't have much room to manuever. You sometimes don't even have the proper weapons to move a shortstack off of a draw (or off of a better hand), because his stack (and your effective stack) is so small.

[Go_Blue88]

[ QUOTE ]
Doh. It figures that one of the more respected and presumably solid players immediately disagrees with me, hehe.

Do you hate the extra variance and extra irrationality of their play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Although you weren't asking me this, I'll elaborate on why I hate them so much. To put it simply, shortstacks take most of the skill out of the game. When I play them I need to fold many of the hands that I'd normally call raises with b/c if i flop a nice draw, i see no point in drawing against them or making a play. If i make a play, they're next move is to push with their TPTK b/c they don't need to worry about losing a good amount of money if they're wrong. Furthermore, many times shortstacks kill my action. I can't stand what i denote as, "the all-in idiot." Some of these jackasses raise all-in, and that's their only move. So if i flop trips, a guy bets, and then this jackass shortstack raises all in on his [censored] flush draw, or TPTK, i get screwed. With deeper stacks, your skill will show more, and you'll obviously make more. Playing a shortstack simplifies the game too much.

[bingledork]

I hate shortstacks!

Yes they are almost universally bad, but they completely change the game. You have to wait for a decent hand and call their all-in with your medium pair. I can live with one short stack at the table, but if I see more than that, I move tables.

The best tables are the ones with passive players. I don't care what their stacks are, but passive/predictable players are the easiest to beat.

[crosse91]

I hate short stacks. I think they're an epidemic on Stars as well. At all the 100nl tables there's at LEAST 2-3 players with less than 30 bucks. Its become rare to see someone else who has 100+. I hate it, and will get up if there aren't many players with the buyin/more than the table buyin