Theory Discussion - Table Selection

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ 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.