Theory Discussion - Table Selection

[whyzze]

I have been thinking about table selection alot recently and I am sure many of you will agree with me, but this is where winning poker really starts. Good table selection decisions will greatly payoff in the long run.

I find in many of today's games I cannot find what I would classify as a 'great' table. For me, this generally means alot of loose/passive players that overvalue their hands. I find that typically, this type of game is easiest for me to beat and has typically low variance. Today's games usually put me in a decision where I find tables with 1-2 of these player's and the rest are medium-strong regulars.

Having the second form of tables in great abundance means we are put to another decision. What seat is going to maximize our EV. Where is it in relation to my target players and the players I want to stay away from. This all boils down to position. Who do I want position on and why?

Below I have outlined two very common tables I come across playing nl50 at FTP. For discussions sake, we will say they are nl25.

Some assumptions are, we have datamined for an hour prior to playing in order to make educated decisions before sitting down. We multitable, but only need to select one more table of the two remaining, which include the following players/reads:

Table one - 25nl

Seat 1: 50/20/2.4 -- 100 hands -- $45 -- No reads
Seat 2: 35/8/1 -- 300 hands -- $22 -- No reads
Seat 3: Open
Seat 4: 25/15/2 -- 800 hands -- $52 -- Villian is straightforward, often enters the pot with marginal hands.
Seat 5: 22/18/4 -- 2300 hands -- $32 -- Villian is a multitabling regular. 3bets light against you and is positionally aware. Definately a solid winning player.
Seat 6: Open




Table 2 - 25nl

Seat 1: Open
Seat 2: 68/2/.3 -- 17 hands -- $13 -- No reads
Seat 3: 30/12/2 -- 200 hands -- $22 -- No reads
Seat 4: 25/8/2 -- 150 hands -- $28 -- No reads
Seat 5: Open
Seat 6: 35/25/6 -- 1500 hands -- $65 -- Villian is very aggressive and seems positionally aware. Will constantly put you to a decision, however, stacks off pretty light because of his agression.


So at which table and in which seat do you sit? More importantly why do you sit in that particular seat. When replying, please state your style of play and how you plan to adjust to the table to maximize your EV.

[Perk76]

I like to sit on the left of the fish player on table 1. Seat 1 and 2 seem to play alot of pots which would allow you to 3bet/raise to isolate them and play pots against them.

Table 2 doesnt have enough money on it to consider it a table to select. IMO. If I had to sit it would be seat one, hoping to mess with the 35/25/6 that has a good stack.

[Pilket]

I like table 2, seat 1 for the reason of blind stealing and getting to seriously choose which hands you'll play with seat 6.

Since I'll be raising PF against seats 2-4 frequently, I'll have a loose image and I can choose to enter a pot with seat 6 when I've really got it. So I've got the added bonus of constant blind-steals to keep my stack up, with the option of waiting to stack-a-lag when I've got the goods.

BTW, my table selection generally sucks. Comments?

Pilket

[thac]

Table 2, Seat 5. 3 fish playing too many hands on my right, I can adjust to Seat 6 being on my left.

[corsakh]

[ QUOTE ]
Table 2, Seat 5. 3 fish playing too many hands on my right, I can adjust to Seat 6 being on my left.

[/ QUOTE ]

Table 2 is dry. What difference does it make if you have position on fish when they don't have any monies.

[Tiki]

[ QUOTE ]
Table 2, Seat 5. 3 fish playing too many hands on my right, I can adjust to Seat 6 being on my left.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also good relative position for much of the time.

[hennnerz]

Seat 1: 50/20/2.4 -- 100 hands -- $45 -- No reads

Left of him is seat 6 right?

[thing85]

[ QUOTE ]
Seat 1: 50/20/2.4 -- 100 hands -- $45 -- No reads

Left of him is seat 6 right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. This was my choice as well. When he limps and you raise, you'll get a lot of pots heads up with him and he almost has a full stack. I like this seat.

[thac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Table 2, Seat 5. 3 fish playing too many hands on my right, I can adjust to Seat 6 being on my left.

[/ QUOTE ]

Table 2 is dry. What difference does it make if you have position on fish when they don't have any monies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two full stacks and one half-stack.. ?

[corsakh]

Its kinda confusing but ..

[ QUOTE ]
Below I have outlined two very common tables I come across playing nl50 at FTP. For discussions sake, we will say they are nl25.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since OP was not clear I just assumed it was 50nl since in my experience its not easy to find tables this deep for 25nl.

[thac]

Wait.. so they're nl50 tables?

I don't understand.

But anyways it's about the same amount of money (table 2 has a bit less) but there is only 1 decent player on your left as opposed to 2 at table 1.

[whyzze]

[ QUOTE ]
Its kinda confusing but ..

[ QUOTE ]
for discussions sake, we will say they are nl25.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya. It is. I cant fix it anymore though. Can a mod put 25nl next to table 1 and table 2 please?

[Perk76]

Table 2 has a $13, $22,$28, and an aggro $65. Why sit here unless you want to play NL25? If your talking table selection, surely you would select a table that has deep stacks or at least full stacks.

I only like table 1 since you can do alot of iso raising the 2 bad players that would be putting some chips in the pot alot. It not the perfect table, but it offers more possibilities than table 2.

Deep monies equal profit.

[thac]

But if they have a decent stack, they've somehow played somewhat decent to get that stack.. I'd rather just vbet a bunch of passive players with 100bb or less because they've lost some of what they sat with (probably) and they're looking to double up.

[ama0330]

Both tables are 25nl.

[Perk76]

[ QUOTE ]
Both tables are 25nl.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ama, please see the sticky about 1 liners in strat forums, they dont help anyone. k thx.

Since the tables are NL25, I think that helps table 2 out some. Seat 6 would allow you to play against a deep aggressive player with position. I would most likely jump at sitting at that seat.

[mrpotto]

Here's my general table selection methodology (FTP). Looking for comments. I look for tables with high VPIP with high pot size stats. I then pop into the table and look around for players with around $12 -$22 in play (NL $25). My logic is that these folks are mostly likely recreational players or players playing above their rolls since they haven't reloaded to a full $25. Lately I walk into tables with 2 of my target players accompanied by at least one or two regulars. I don't have PA Hud which is probably a mistake but I get a decent feel for how players play after a few hands (plus the fact that I *only* play 3-4 tables at a time (and I'll check out their stats in poker tracker occasionally during play).

[kurto]

Why aren't I sitting at both of these tables again?
Table 1 seat 3 - I have position on the guy playing 50/20 who has a 180bb stack.

I also sit at table 2 seat 1 - Money goes clockwise and I have position on the biggest stack at the table who "stacks off easily".

[Pilket]

[ QUOTE ]
I also sit at table 2 seat 1 - Money goes clockwise and I have position on the biggest stack at the table who "stacks off easily".

[/ QUOTE ]

Hah! I gots one right! Maybe there's hope for me after all.

Pilket

[Perk76]

[ QUOTE ]
But if they have a decent stack, they've somehow played somewhat decent to get that stack..

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont ever look at deep stacks this way unless you know the players. I see lags/fish run stacks up way to quickly for this to be true alot. Besides, what goes up must come down. If they stay long enough, they are due to get hit. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[pikeamus]

[ QUOTE ]
Why aren't I sitting at both of these tables again?
Table 1 seat 3 - I have position on the guy playing 50/20 who has a 180bb stack.

I also sit at table 2 seat 1 - Money goes clockwise and I have position on the biggest stack at the table who "stacks off easily".

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, both are decent seats, though table 2 is probably a little better because you don't have the good player to your left 3 betting you often.

[thac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if they have a decent stack, they've somehow played somewhat decent to get that stack..

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont ever look at deep stacks this way unless you know the players. I see lags/fish run stacks up way to quickly for this to be true alot. Besides, what goes up must come down. If they stay long enough, they are due to get hit. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, true, that's me being w/t - I suppose you're right but still.. two fish have a full stack, and there are only two fish on the other table, with two decent players.

I dunno, I'd just rather be with three bad players and an aggro guy that stacks off light rather than two fish and two LAGgy regs that will make life hell for you if they're on your left.

If you're on the right of the fish you can't really get into too many pots with them unless you flat one of the LAGs raises on the BTN and pray that one of the fish comes along.

[Pokey]

I chose "Table 2, Seat 1," and apparently I'm in the minority on that one.

To me, having a large-stacked and extremely aggressive opponent on my direct right is extraordinarily profitable. I sit back, let him bet me off my hand most of the time, and when I get a monster -- KABLAMMO! -- I double up by calling to the river and making a river raise if necessary. The other benefit of this seat is that I don't have anybody at the table who will fight me too hard for Seat 6's money, and even if they do get some, they're bad enough to give it back.

Anywhere I sit at Table #1 is going to be a bad seat -- either I've got a hyper-aggressive and good player on my immediate left, three-betting me lightly and taking me off my game or I'm OOP against all the fish. Neither is as appealing to me as Table 2, Seat 1.

Mind you -- given the choice I'm sitting at both tables: Table 1, Seat 3 is a tasty choice with soft and wealthy goodness on my right. I'll just have to tighten up to be able to fight back against the light three-bettor. I expect that if I four-bet all-in preflop a few times he'll ease up with the light three-betting, so I may have to risk a stack a few times to get him to fall into line.

[thac]

[ QUOTE ]
I chose "Table 2, Seat 1," and apparently I'm in the minority on that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I was torn between the seats on Table 2, in the end though I decided that I can c/r the hell out of Seat 6 while keeping good position on the fish.

[kroeliewoelie]

I only play 20NL and I do not see many good players. So I haven't got that much experience with table selection. My usual criteria are:

1) At least 4 of 5 people with full stacks, or stacks close to full. You can only take money if it's at a table.
2) high VPIP is nice (loose passive types)
3) No positionally aware light three bettor on my left.

[Waingro]

Table 2 seat 5. 3 passive fish to my right, what is not to like? The only problem is seat 6, who will twart my master plan of playing lots of pots in position vs the fish. So I would probably tighten up a little bit more than I want to. I can´t see how seat 6 could be the mark, I´d bet good money he plays better post flop than the other 3. It is not like he will 3barrel with air everytime you flop a set.

[Jouster777]

[ QUOTE ]
Table 2 seat 5. 3 passive fish to my right, what is not to like? The only problem is seat 6, who will twart my master plan of playing lots of pots in position vs the fish. So I would probably tighten up a little bit more than I want to. I can´t see how seat 6 could be the mark, I´d bet good money he plays better post flop than the other 3. It is not like he will 3barrel with air everytime you flop a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that seat is the last one I would want. The decent LAG to my left is a nightmare.

I want passive/tight/short stacked to my left and aggro/loose/deep stacked to my right.

[Waingro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Table 2 seat 5. 3 passive fish to my right, what is not to like? The only problem is seat 6, who will twart my master plan of playing lots of pots in position vs the fish. So I would probably tighten up a little bit more than I want to. I can´t see how seat 6 could be the mark, I´d bet good money he plays better post flop than the other 3. It is not like he will 3barrel with air everytime you flop a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that seat is the last one I would want. The decent LAG to my left is a nightmare.

I want passive/tight/short stacked to my left and aggro/loose/deep stacked to my right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, you are probably right.

[Leviathan101]

I take table 2 seat 1 all day. The lag in seat 6 stacks off light and the rest of the table are fish who I don't need to be in position to take money from them.

[whyzze]

When I created the tables I did not have any specific answer in mind. I just wanted to see how people react to these options.

Alot of where you choose to sit is going to come down to what kind of player you are. In both cases you are going to need to adjust accordingly to maximize your expected value.


Table


When it came down to choosing a table I think they are both good choices.

Table 1 has two bad players and two decent players. The worst player has a 200bb stack which makes this table extremely attractive to me. Another thing that I like is that everybody is greater than 88bbs deep. There is alot of money on this table, and the worse players have the majority of it. There is one strong player at this table. Undoubtly if we sit, we are going to be fighting him for control of the 2 bad players.

Table 2 has nobody I would consider a good player. There is a maniac with alot of money, nearly 300 bbs deep. He is very tempting to sit down with, but dont forget that you are going to have to adjust to him and you will need to stack off light as well. The shortstack (<50bbs) should basically be ignored at this table. We have less than 20 hands on him and he really doesn't have much money. If he was full stacked, this table would be amazing. But he isn't. The other two are very average. We dont gain as much from them as we would from the other two players. They aren't an ideal opponent, but are by no means players you should avoid.


Seat

Table 1, Seat 3:

A great seat in my opinion. We will have position on the two bad players and be able to isolate their frequent limps. This overall is going to be a pretty good seat. The only problem is the strong player who is going to fight us for control here. However, I think this is going to be easy to combat. He will be on the button when we are UTG. I am going to be playing tight here anyways, but I will tighten up a little more because I dont want him to have position on me ever. Ill keep it to premiums and he will almost never have me in position when I'm not holding the goods. As we move around the table, I am going to have position on him through mp to button. We are going to have to make some moves preflop and on the flop, but overall this should help us play against him. We are going to take him out of his comfort zone and force him to play our game while we have position. I am going to hammer the hell out of the two better players from the button.

Table 1, Seat 6:

I really do not like this seat. We have position on the good player. Yes, that is a good thing. But he is not the target here. We give position to players that are likely to be confusing and hard to play against OOP, will we miss alot of turn/river value from the bad players in this seat and we aren't making up for it from the good player. We will be forced to 3bet frequently in and out of position as well as forced to fold some hands that have good equity against the bad players.

Table 2, Seat 1:

The player in seat 6 is definately the reason we are sitting at this table. He is going to be damn near impossible to play against OOP - he is going to float us alot and make us fold decent hands frequently. If we have position on him, we can let him try to shove us off our hands and make some good money. There is a terrible player to our left with not too much money. I am not too concerned about him. I am going to avoid suited connectors and other 'hit the flop hard' hands and just try to hit top pair against him and valuebet his stack away.

Table 2, Seat 5:

Horrible seat. Letting this maniac have position on us is going to be a barrage of 3bets and huge bluffs. We are going to have to stack off incredibly light in this seat to combat his play and be profitable. We are not getting enough value from having the other players to our right as we are losing having him to our left. If I sit here, I am probably playing 13/10 and hoping he doesn't notice how huge a nit I'm being.


Overall my choice is table 1, seat 3. This seat offers me a great expected value with some variance. The variance we will experience just from sitting with the maniac is huge. He will pay us off frequently, but we are forced to play his game, and his is a game of constant marginal decisions for stacks.

At table 1, seat 3, I will do well from the bad players, and hopefully turn the good player into a profitable situation by forcing him to step outside his comfort zone.