[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
glad you booked the win, but why were you at these tables anyway? i would never sit at a table if i couldn't identify AT LEAST one fish/donator (not difficult at party, imo).


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an intersting point. I have been probably a little slack in my "fish" tracking. At the limits I usually play, I think they tend to go away quickly, and as a consequence I tend to simply look for looser tables. Keep in mind if you multi-table above $100 limits, there are seldom THAT many different tables to choose from. I will generally flock to the loosest table and close down a table where I recognize too many tight players. Most of the time this gives me an edge on whatever table I am playing on, but I probably DO need to devote more time to a cataloguing the FISH rather than relying on Pokertracker and settling for a smaller edge.

That said, I would be giving up a pretty steady advantage if I only sat down at a table where I could identify at least one fish/donator (at least by my standards).

Case in point: Today I sat down at the $400 tables and I'd say I immediately recognized about half the tables as chronic players I'd consider solid (but not quite as good). There were a couple more that I had played with but made no impression and 2 unknowns. One of the unknowns with a name that closely resembles "Letool" seems to enter a lot of pots and makes a lot of pot sized bets and re-raises where it is unlikely that anyone has much of a hand. He comes over me on a pretty big steal attempt and I go down $100. It doesn't take long for me to catch a strong 2 way hand, get some money in the pot, and I take all but $70 of his stack-- which he didn't rebuy. This is not an uncommon scenario, and one which if I refused to sit because there were no identified fish (and the rest of the table was solid) I would be $230 poorer. I view myself as having an advantage at virtually every table I play and view every unknown player as most-likely to be giving up a HUGE advantage to me.