PDA

View Full Version : Some thoughts on game selection


Fiksdal
06-16-2007, 01:59 PM
Thoughts on game selection at uNL
By Fiksdal

Game selection is something every serious poker player should have in his mind when he starts a session. Obviously what kind of table you are at and which opponents you are facing, is gonna be crucial for your expected win. Game selection gets more important the higher in stakes you get, but even at 10NL, I’d definitely recommend considering what kind of tables you chose to sit down at.

Different kinds of players prefer different types of opponents. For instance, if you are a loose aggressive player who get a lot of your profitable situations from fold equity, you’d perhaps prefer tight, passive and nitty opponents that will be easier to run over. If you are a tight aggressive player who usually have the goods when you play big pots, you probably like to have the loose/passive kind of fish, who calls down a lot, by your side. For serious uNL players, this is usually the case, because pretty much no matter what kind of micro stakes table you are at, bluffing several streets with air/a marginal hand, is something you aren’t gonna be doing, even if they are kind of tight.

So how do you find the typical loose/passive fish that go to showdown a lot? At 10NL for instance, most of the tables are gonna be filled with them. But even there you would like to find the very juiciest tables, with perhaps even 2 or more 70/8/1-ish types. However, the higher you get up in stakes, the fewer will the true fish be. At 50NL for instance, every table will have at least a couple of TAGs on it. There are of course a lot of fish on 50NL too, but they are rarer. This is where game selection gets even more important.

The POT SIZE strategy
A lot of people start their session by putting themselves on the waiting list for the games with the currently highest average pot sizes. The reasoning behind this tactic is obvious, at the tables where the pots are big; the players seem willing to usually put a lot of money in the pot. This is good for us, who will usually have good cards when we decide to play those big pots. Personally I have used this game selection strategy a lot, and I have had mixed experiences with it.

<font color="blue">Problems with this strategy:</font>
1. As a result of other people using the same strategy, there aren’t usually any free seats at the table with the highest average pot. Most of the time there are even a couple of people on the waiting list already. So it’s probably gonna take something like 10-15 minutes from when you register to when you actually get a seat. By that time, the fish who were putting all that money in the pots might already have been stacked by one of the more solid players at the table! Several times have I waited for a seat at the juiciest game, only to eventually sit down on it to find a bunch of 17/13 tight aggressive players sitting around folding preflop. Clearly this kind of table is also beatable if you adapt, but it is not where the highest possible winrate can be achieved.

2. Big pot size doesn’t necessarily mean bad players. First of all, it could simply be a result of variance. For instance, if in one hand BTN pick up KK while BB has AA (they’ll probably get it all-in preflop or on the flop), and then in the next time to deep-stacked players both flop a set, then those pots, and thus the average pot size is gonna be huge no matter how skilled the players are.

Also, good players know how to value bet their strong hands, and build big pots with them. Let’s say you have a 6-handed 50NL game with $10 as the average pot size. This is a pretty low number, and the logic assumption about the players at it, is that they aren’t gonna pay off your big hands. But is this given? Not necessarily. Ask yourself, what is your favorite kind of fish? Different people might have a different answer to this question, but personally, I definitely prefer the loose passive kind of opponent. I’d like him to play a lot of hands, call preflop raises all the time and rarely use aggression himself but rather call, call, call. The advantages of facing these kinds of opponents are obvious. We get the ability to decide when the money goes in against them, and they aren’t even the aggressive type who bluffs us off the best hand from time to time.

<font color="green">Example hand:</font>
Hero (CO): 100bb: T/images/graemlins/diamond.gifT/images/graemlins/spade.gif
Fish (BB): 70bb [70/6/0.5]: 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif7/images/graemlins/heart.gif

Preflop: (1.5bb, 6 players)
UTG folds, MP folds, Hero raises to 4bb, BTN folds, SB folds, BB calls 3bb.

Flop: 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif8/images/graemlins/heart.gifA/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (8.5bb, 2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets 8bb, BB calls 8bb.

Turn: K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (24.5bb, 2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks.

River: 7/images/graemlins/club.gif (24.5bb, 2 players)

Now this is a spot where a lot of villains will usually put out a bluff. He missed his OESDFD (something that makes most players frustrated), and he saw us showing weakness by checking behind on the turn. So most of the time they are gonna put out that bluff, taking the pot away from us. However, the 70/6/0.5 player doesn’t bet that river. He just wants to see that showdown, after all he has a pair (and we all know how these players overvalue their hands). So he checks, and we get to check behind and take down that 24bb pot.) Such small pots make a surprisingly big difference in your final result.

A table with a small average pot size, may very well be filled with that kind of loose passive fish. Their passive nature has just prevented them to build a lot of big pots. For instance, let’s look at another hand where both the involved players are fish with similar stats to the villain in the other hand:

CO: 130bbs: 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif8/images/graemlins/spade.gif
BTN: 130bbs: 9/images/graemlins/club.gif9/images/graemlins/heart.gif

Preflop: (1.5bb, 6 players)
UTG folds, MP folds, CO calls 1bb, BTN calls 1bb, SB folds, BB checks.

Now only on the preflop round have we seen an example of bad players who you’d love to sit with, but still they don’t create big pots. If at least one of these players was a TAG, there would have been at least a raise preflop in this hand, maybe even a 3bet.

Flop: 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 2/images/graemlins/club.gif (3.5bb, 3 players)
BB checks, CO checks, BTN checks (lol)

Now both players decided to slow-play their flopped sets, which is of course a felony on this board and these stacks. It is however an extremely common play by loose/passive fish.

Turn: 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif (3.5bb, 3 players)
BB checks, CO bets 2bb, BTN calls 2bb, BB folds.

CO notices the pot being tiny, and is (correctly) trying to get some money into it. BTN however, decides to keep slow-playing, out of fear of CO going away if he raises.

River: 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (7.5bb, 2 players)
CO bets 4bb, BTN calls 4bb.

CO sees the card completing the draws. In a scared fashion he puts out a small value/blocking bet. BTN who is also afraid of the draws, just calls! The final pot size is 15.5bb. An incredibly small pot considering the monsters the players had, but such hands go down between passive fish all the time. If this hand had been going on between two TAGs, the final pot size would by all likeliness have been 260bbs.

So a high average pot size doesn’t always mean bad players, and a low one doesn’t always mean good ones. However, if a good, aggressive player sits down at a table full of these opponents, he will be able to control pot sizes against them. They usually call down too much, and if the aggressive player picks up a bunch of hands that qualify to value bet multiple streets with, pots involving the calling stations and him could get rather large. This is why the tables with the low average pot sizes might not always be that bad at all. Players at it could be very willing to put money in the pot with medium hands. All they need is someone to make bets that they can call. Someone who will build big pots: YOU.

How do you find the tables with this kind of opponents? Personally, there is a strategy I have been using more and more lately. When I start a session I open a couple of empty tables, and sit down at them. What kind of players do you think is gonna sit down with me? Do you think the other decent TAGs who play multiple tables are gonna sit down and play heads up with another regular? Very unlikely. Most of the time the people that come to me are total fish. They usually buy-in for like 20-50bb (a very good sign), and start limping all over the place. It usually doesn’t take long before I have 5 sweet loose/passive fish sitting with me, and the average stats of my table are amazingly often along the lines of 50/10/1 when I use this strategy. Then the fish double up through each other and I get to play with them 100bbs deep. uNL, I encourage you all to use this table selection technique the next time you start a session.

See you in the forums.

Lurker.
06-16-2007, 02:03 PM
nice post.

Sweir
06-16-2007, 02:12 PM
Very nice post fiksdal, sounds like a interesting strategy to use. Btw you missed a vb on the river of e.g hand 1 /images/graemlins/smile.gif

jk1986
06-16-2007, 02:13 PM
nh, I especially like the sitting at a fresh table point, its a good idea.

goat_beard
06-16-2007, 02:53 PM
vn post &lt;3

C4LL4W4Y
06-16-2007, 07:00 PM
Sitting heads up is an interesting strategy, and probably effective as long as the tables are filling up. I hate the amount of rake you have to pay, though, in shorthanded uNL tables.

As far as the pot-size selection strategy, I agree that it does have its drawbacks (i.e. short term variance and lack of dependence on players' abilities), but bigger pots magnify the mistakes of your opponents. If you're a solid post-flop player, big pots play to your advantage and you should seek them out with regularity.

BertieH
06-16-2007, 07:10 PM
great post - thanks buddy

orange
06-16-2007, 07:14 PM
this is a good post. i think that the better tables (at least at the 1/2 games) are the ones with few to no regulars are the best ones, no matter what size the average pot.

samwallistea
06-16-2007, 07:18 PM
Nice post, definetely trying the open empty table strategy next time I play.

Sean Fraley
06-16-2007, 08:56 PM
If you have an account on stars, PM me and I will transfer you $10 in gratitude. I tried this tonight and it works great.

DannyOcean_
06-17-2007, 12:04 AM
I think another super-basic strategy is the % to the flop.

It is much less inclined to fluctuate just based on variance. you can have really high avg. pots with great, tough players at the table, but you absolutely will not see a table with 55% vpip where there are a ton of tough tables. A very high % means lots of LP play pf, which is what TAGs are going to profit from. Plus the fact that a table with 55% vpip probably doesn't have the best postflop play in the world. Overall, a more reliable measure than avg. pot, although avg. pot is by no means worthless.

Leviathan101
06-17-2007, 12:18 AM
I use the % to see flop strategy.

However, how important is stack size to you guys? I use stacksize as my #1 priority, cause I'm trying to stack people. Do you guys really sit down at tables wiht a bunch of $2 stacks even if the VPIP is 80%?

vixticator
06-17-2007, 12:30 AM
Over the past how many hands are these stats collected anyway? I just go to the highest pot size and players per flop open and stay there.

Short stacks don't bother me, they seem a lot more willing to give away money than deep stacks -- if anything I prefer playing with them. None of them even know how to play short 'correctly'. They buy in for $2 at NL10 and are in 60% of hands, just total spew. I could do without the tables where I am the big stack at like $15 and the next highest is $3 and everyone else has like 15XBB though... doesn't happen enough to care about.

MaltbyStu
06-17-2007, 12:31 AM
My strategy is % to flop and then stack sizes. I look for stacks mostly greater than 60BB. SOmetimes can take a while but seems to work.

Stu

ReNoRyan
06-17-2007, 01:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think another super-basic strategy is the % to the flop.

It is much less inclined to fluctuate just based on variance. you can have really high avg. pots with great, tough players at the table, but you absolutely will not see a table with 55% vpip where there are a ton of tough tables. A very high % means lots of LP play pf, which is what TAGs are going to profit from. Plus the fact that a table with 55% vpip probably doesn't have the best postflop play in the world. Overall, a more reliable measure than avg. pot, although avg. pot is by no means worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very good Danny, When I am game selecting I look for tables with both high Avg. Pot and % of players that see flop.

I try to look for tables with % to flop between 35%and above. I also try and find tables with avg. pot size of 8 or greater.

A table that has both of those aspects usually works well.

TheDespot
06-17-2007, 01:42 AM
Interesting strategy. The only thing about sitting at the new table is you don't get to dictate who you're sitting with. I also use the % to see flop. I like it high, but to be honest I don't like it to be enormously high because that just indicates a free-for-all maniac table. And then I look at stack sizes. I like for everyone to have at least 50BB's. If you have even one shorty every time you're in a hand with him it changes the whole dynamic of the hand, and I like deepstacked play much better (and there's more $$$ to be won obviously). If you sit at an empty table, you could end up playing three-handed with two 10BB stacks and have little to gain but a lot to lose. That's the one thing that I wouldn't like about this strategy. But then again, you could always just get up from the table if that is the case. I'll try it out and see how it goes. And I agree few regulars are going to seek out empty tables. I never even thought of this and always sat in full to near-full tables. With this post though the regulars might overflood the empty tables now and then it would backfire, eh? (95% joke)

jessyj07
06-17-2007, 01:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]

I try to look for tables with % to flop between 35%and above. I also try and find tables with avg. pot size of 8 or greater.

[/ QUOTE ]I look for tables of 43% to flop or &gt; and only one short stack at the table.

ama0330
06-17-2007, 07:07 AM
Nice post.

I usually use the pot size to determine my tables, but its a flawed strategy because I'll get to the table and find 3 short stacks going all in all over the place warping the average pot size.

BishopsFinger
06-17-2007, 07:17 AM
nh sir.

Sweir
06-17-2007, 11:57 AM
BUMP

I tried this strategy yesterday and it worked well.

vovans
06-17-2007, 12:13 PM
Nice post.

I like idea about play HU or 3-4 handed at beginning of game... idea about opening the table. I will try it out.

TheyCallMeDonk
06-19-2007, 12:18 PM
I love allll the 20bb fishes &lt;3

yntm3
06-19-2007, 12:29 PM
Every come across heads up specialists filling the second seat? I just hate the idea of sitting there wasting my BB's (I am not much of a HU player) waiting for other players to arrive. This could be a problem on a site like UB where the numbers are lower.

Anyways, anyone have any thoughts about this?

Waingro
06-19-2007, 12:30 PM
This is such a good post. So true. The people we love the most can´t in a million year create a big pot themselves.

Manchild84
06-19-2007, 12:43 PM
My name is Manchild, and I endorse this post.

dfkdfk
06-19-2007, 12:49 PM
great read, thanks for the writeup

kurto
06-19-2007, 01:03 PM
My secret-
FTP allows you to put a color code on players in the notes section. This aids in hand selection greatly.

As I play and datamine, I colorcode my opponents. Calling stations and Fish: YELLOW. Maniacs in PURPLE (my favorite). LAGS in RED, SLAGS in Orange.

Any TAGS/ROCKS and TAPs- shades of blue.

I looks at potsize and % who go to the flop. But I can open them up and, even before Pokerace has got all the stats going, immediately see if I want to sit down. (and if there's an open seat, I know who I have position on).

If there's a lot of red, yellow or any purple... I usually sit.

If there's 4 or more Blues... unless I have position on a maniac, I don't sit.

Now I have enough people color coded that I can see instantly if a table is worth sitting down.

RMLewis
06-19-2007, 01:29 PM
great post
sticky perhaps?

LordBrun
06-19-2007, 01:45 PM
Doesn't Pokerstars show H/hr?

Fiksdal
06-19-2007, 01:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Every come across heads up specialists filling the second seat? I just hate the idea of sitting there wasting my BB's (I am not much of a HU player) waiting for other players to arrive. This could be a problem on a site like UB where the numbers are lower.

Anyways, anyone have any thoughts about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like you, I'm not much of a heads up player myself either. I still have an edge over the people who usually sit down at first though.. lol trust it's not a problem.

And most of the time the table fills up pretty damn qiuickly.

Supwithbates
06-22-2007, 01:40 PM
What are your thoughts on utilizing players/flop?

bozzer
06-22-2007, 02:01 PM
nice post.

i similarly found that avg pot size is of very little use. i generally use players per flop, and hands per hour as my guidelines, along with making sure there are some decent stacks on my right.

i've used the open a table strat a couple of times, and agree that it does fill up quickly, and is likely to attract poor players. i'll start using it more often now when i can't immediately find a soft table.

shyturtle27
06-22-2007, 02:14 PM
Nice post. I don't pay much attention to average pot. What I do is go through the FT lobby and find the most players/flop where one seat is open. Then I'll highlight the table and if there's three or more people sitting with a full stack or more then I'll open it and join. It's really worked for me.

Fiksdal
06-22-2007, 02:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What are your thoughts on utilizing players/flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

It works alright. Players who see a lot of flops are likely to be pretty bad postflop too. If you datamine for an hour or something before you play and then sit down at the tables with the highes VPIP, then obviously that's gonna work. The problem though, is that usually there will be a waiting list and stuff, because other thinking players do the same thing. The tables with like &gt; 60% players per flop usually have a couple of people on the waiting list. So by the time you sit down, if you are lucky enough to have the fish still sitting with their money in front of them, you're gonna have to sit with at least a couple of TAGs too.

HBomb
06-22-2007, 02:49 PM
This is a terrible post, post fails to deliver /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

DMBFan23
06-25-2007, 08:32 PM
just wanted to bump this and say that I've seen a lot of 12/10 types and 18/16 types sitting at tables with each other (FT $25 NL 6max) way too often, and some of them probably post here. pick good tables instead of autopilot 4-tabling!

Ender Wiggin
08-26-2007, 10:24 AM
bump

xd40
08-26-2007, 10:52 AM
eventually u just know most of the players and where to play at

clowntable
08-26-2007, 11:46 AM
The HU portion of it can actually work in your advantage, too. It's a lot easier to tilt someone playing HU because once you outplay them or suck out on them egos tend to get involved.
If all goes according to plan you can have around +25BB, and a half-tilting opponent once the first people join.
Since we are micro players, I think it's pretty good to get in some HU practice for cheap, too /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Another little bit of table selection I use is a variation on stack size. I usually like to sit with position on someone who has at least doubled their stack. One could argue that the more skilled players are more likely to double their stack and thus you'd prefer position on someone else however I have noticed an interesting fact (once again tilting). If you manage to stack someone who has doubled up before then their remaining stack is likely to go your way pretty soon, too. I guess people get frustrated because they had mentally booked that 1 BI as profit and then start to chase their winnings like they would chase losses.

----

I'd be interested to study table selection on a more formal basis, too. Let me propse a simple model and some thoughts. Note that I'm not mainly looking for directly applicable advice but more for a way of thinking about this (as can be seen by the model):
1) Hero can only play one table and is restricted to 2 hours of play per session
2) There will be exactly 100 hands per hour played at the table
3) A fishier table leads to a higher winrate
4) If a seat opens up it will be an average player leaving

Now the questions:
a) How would Hero determine the influence of the table composition on his winrate? Can we create some sort of heuristic like (#fish*1.2*avg stack of fish pool) - (#tags*avg stack of tag pool)
b) How long would Hero be willing to wait in the "Waiting List" to join a table vs directly joining another table were he estimates a lower winrate. How would different hands/hour (say same table at UB vs Stars) influence the decision
c) When would it be more profitable to directly leave the table to join a jucier one vs. playing the "free" hands that are left before having to post the blinds again?

etc.

This might be total nonsense but it just popped into my head and I thought I'd share it.
I guess the most interesting would be to come up with some sort of "juice factor" heuristic for tables (and then write some code to autojoin those tables etc :P).