Pooh-Bah Post: Table Selection and Regulars (Why Im not at ur tables)

[BHold]

Good post. I really wish I made more of an effort to table select sometimes. When tables start to break and it becomes me and like 2 solid regs or heads up, I just hate to stand up. I don't really get angry and start making bad plays against people, but I do hate to feel like I'm admitting I'm not confident I can beat them or whatever. It's stupid, but it just feels like I'm admitting defeat or something.

[terp]

great advice and let me add the guide to identifying bad players by screen name:

THE RULES:
1) first name/nickname
2) capital letters
3) poker terminology

ex trifecta mega-donk:

BIGJONSTR8FLUSH

[Skleice]

Nice Post.

Table selection is a big part of my $$$. I always find tables w/ high VPIP and big pots. Sometimes it can be deceiving though, cuz you sit down after the fish is gone and all the regs have joined in with the same agenda as you and the stats don't reflect the change yet. Then I'll happily find another table. If there is a megafish that I have position on, I'll sit with him and a bunch of regs, but if he leaves I'm out before teh next hand is dealt.

Also, I've done the method of opening a fresh table. Regs usually look for full tables, so usually you're joined by med stack donks that try to go all in on every hand...which works every time but the last time

[Dire]

I think this depends on your goals in poker. Most of the regulars at stakes like $200, for example, are just really not good at all and have serious flaws in their game. Obviously not even remotely close to the flaws of fish / donks / etc. But refusing to learn to exploit players who aren't completely terrible seems like a good way to stunt your growth as a player and potential for improvement / moving through the stakes. Table selection at small stakes seems likely, for most, to maximize short term results but harm your potential long term results.

Not to mention playing against regulars is just a whole lot more fun than taking some fish's money, or stealing a nit's money blind by blind.

[terp]

yeah also don't be afraid to start your own games. regs will recognize you and tend not to join until at least one full stacked random has sat

[Imrahil]

Just looking at stacks says a TON. The only time you have to analyse a screen name is when they have 100bb+.

[sh58]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. I really wish I made more of an effort to table select sometimes. When tables start to break and it becomes me and like 2 solid regs or heads up, I just hate to stand up. I don't really get angry and start making bad plays against people, but I do hate to feel like I'm admitting I'm not confident I can beat them or whatever. It's stupid, but it just feels like I'm admitting defeat or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a massive leak you have.

the best way to think about it is the following:

i have earned in total $9,170.16 this month at NL200 in 20,678 hands (w/o rake). that is a winrate of 11.1ptbb/100.

if you remove the rake my winrate is only 8.1ptbb/100, so i am paying 3ptbb/100.

so to make a profit sitting at a table of regs you have to have an edge of more than 3ptbb/100. so even if you are the best player at the table, you are probably losing money in the long run.

every table you must look and see the spots where you are making alot of money from. you may have an edge against some 19/13/2 player but is it really enough to overcome the 3ptbb/100 in rake you are paying.

i am usually the 1st person to leave the table, and i am very confident of my ability. i laugh to myself at their stupidity and join another table where i have a massive edge instead of breaking even against a bunch of regs + massive rake


as you move up in stakes, the rake becomes lower in ptbb/100 so at 300/600 the rake is virtually insignificant and playing the same table of regs you figure to have an edge on is a very reasonable thing to do as you probably only have to have an edge over them of 1ptbb/100 to make a profit


an often overlooked fact about table selection....

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good post. I really wish I made more of an effort to table select sometimes. When tables start to break and it becomes me and like 2 solid regs or heads up, I just hate to stand up. I don't really get angry and start making bad plays against people, but I do hate to feel like I'm admitting I'm not confident I can beat them or whatever. It's stupid, but it just feels like I'm admitting defeat or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a massive leak you have.

the best way to think about it is the following:

i have earned in total $9,170.16 this month at NL200 in 20,678 hands (w/o rake). that is a winrate of 11.1ptbb/100.

if you remove the rake my winrate is only 8.1ptbb/100, so i am paying 3ptbb/100.

so to make a profit sitting at a table of regs you have to have an edge of more than 3ptbb/100. so even if you are the best player at the table, you are probably losing money in the long run.

every table you must look and see the spots where you are making alot of money from. you may have an edge against some 19/13/2 player but is it really enough to overcome the 3ptbb/100 in rake you are paying.

i am usually the 1st person to leave the table, and i am very confident of my ability. i laugh to myself at their stupidity and join another table where i have a massive edge instead of breaking even against a bunch of regs + massive rake


as you move up in stakes, the rake becomes lower in ptbb/100 so at 300/600 the rake is virtually insignificant and playing the same table of regs you figure to have an edge on is a very reasonable thing to do as you probably only have to have an edge over them of 1ptbb/100 to make a profit


an often overlooked fact about table selection....

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are remotely decent at very short-handed play, your edge against a 19/13/2 'reg' in a 3-handed game should be massive. Certainly more than 3BB/100. Those guys are extremely unlikely to have even remotely close to the proper skill set for 3 handed play.

Again, just another way of looking at things.

[Skleice]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this depends on your goals in poker. Most of the regulars at stakes like $200, for example, are just really not good at all and have serious flaws in their game. Obviously not even remotely close to the flaws of fish / donks / etc. But refusing to learn to exploit players who aren't completely terrible seems like a good way to stunt your growth as a player and potential for improvement / moving through the stakes. Table selection at small stakes seems likely, for most, to maximize short term results but harm your potential long term results.


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously this is a very valid point. I think this ties into bankroll aswell. For instance, I've recently moved to SSNL from micros. Right now, I'm continuing to build my roll and adjust to the stakes, so stacking fish is helping that tremendously. I'm planning on staying clear of GOOD regs until I have more buyins to deal with the variance and my learning curve of how to deal with them.

[Dr_Doctr]

I don't agree that trying to find soft games would hurt your development at all. Exploiting weak players for maximum value is probably the most important skill you can have. A lot of regulars I see who play pretty well against other regulars refuse to adjust their game to weak players - they play their usual Tag game or whatever and while it definitely gives them an edge it's often far from optimal. They refuse to limp because limping is 'bad' - they refuse to coldcall because coldcalling is 'bad' - they refuse to play junk because playing junk is 'bad', and so on.

You can still learn to exploit regulars because you hardly ever get a table full of very bad players. In fact playing soft games with just one or two regulars is probably more helpful to developing skills because you'll have to adjust to the dynamic - looking out for regulars trying to isolate and 3-betting them etc.