NL 10 players/flop question

[BotOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
It hasn't occurred to you that a table full of nits is ideal for the LAG we are looking to target?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Since I think we all at NL5 are weak players, and most go too far with second best hands. To be paid of with my monsters I find it ideal to have many players on the flop who will build the pot with me. It just sucks to have a set when only the weak-tight big blind is in the hand.

[Mike Kelley]

No, I mean perhaps the LAG is looking for a table of NITS. Because NITS get exploited by LAGS. Was just a theory as to why the LAG is sitting at the table full of NITS.

[BotOnTilt]

Oh, ok. Sorry, I missunderstood your reply. The players that I look for are more of a loose-passive kind, and at NL5 their skill level is not at such a level that they would be able to exploit nits (I think plays according to villain type are rare in NL5 in general). But I do understand your point, and in higher stakes games I'm sure you would be correct. Its just that with NL5 being the smallest game at my site I usually tend to believe that the loose-passive players are the weakest and most easily exploitable.

I've also made an interesting note that PT often ranks new players as loose-agressive instead of passive because they make so many min-bets and PT doesn't make a difference in bet sizing. Not that this is a problem, I just found it interesting when I noticed it.

Sometimes I wonder if my hunt for loose-passive players is optimal. The thing is that I notice many of the tighter players have a much more predictable hand range, and its easy to put them on an over pair if they continue to bet on a low flop - which would make it profitable to call with almost anything as they would probably get stacked if I can beat one pair. What do you guys think?

The other players I wonder about are 60/30 -type players since its so hard to put them on ranges as they can raise almost anything from any position. Its easy to think that by getting a monster they can be stacked, but its difficult to know if say TPGK is enough since they are usually agressive with any piece of the flop.

[LearningCurve]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I wonder if my hunt for loose-passive players is optimal. The thing is that I notice many of the tighter players have a much more predictable hand range, and its easy to put them on an over pair if they continue to bet on a low flop - which would make it profitable to call with almost anything as they would probably get stacked if I can beat one pair. What do you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! I'm constantly reassessing this idea. I look for loosish tables but am forever wondering why?! I really prefer a player who is thinking, albeit not thinking well. A "reasonable" villain is so much more predicatable and is therefore much easier to read. Easier to read is easier to beat.

[ QUOTE ]
The other players I wonder about are 60/30 -type players since its so hard to put them on ranges as they can raise almost anything from any position. Its easy to think that by getting a monster they can be stacked, but its difficult to know if say TPGK is enough since they are usually agressive with any piece of the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I completely agree. I've tried many a time to beat them at their own game. I'll take my marginal hand to showdown and will be beaten basically every single time. Hopefully by now I've finally learned my lesson. Too bad my list of lessons is so long...it's a whole lot to keep up with! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Teddie]

[ QUOTE ]

Sometimes I wonder if my hunt for loose-passive players is optimal. The thing is that I notice many of the tighter players have a much more predictable hand range, and its easy to put them on an over pair if they continue to bet on a low flop - which would make it profitable to call with almost anything as they would probably get stacked if I can beat one pair. What do you guys think?

The other players I wonder about are 60/30 -type players since its so hard to put them on ranges as they can raise almost anything from any position. Its easy to think that by getting a monster they can be stacked, but its difficult to know if say TPGK is enough since they are usually agressive with any piece of the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]


I much prefer the 60/30 players, a table with a few of those is heaven. If you dont want to stack off with TPTK then just fold it on the turn, or check it on through. I am always happy to get my money in with AK on a K high flop knowing Villan will pay me off with a TPWK.

I dont like playing at tables with TAG's, its too boring and i end playing back at them and get caught out eventualy.

[BotOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]

I much prefer the 60/30 players, a table with a few of those is heaven. If you dont want to stack off with TPTK then just fold it on the turn, or check it on through. I am always happy to get my money in with AK on a K high flop knowing Villan will pay me off with a TPWK.


[/ QUOTE ]

With AK I'll of course get it in with them on an A or K board, but its when I call their raise with TJ suited and the board comes T-high and they keep firing that I don't know whats the correct way to continue. Since they have raised every third hand they have been delt I can't just put them on an over pair, but AT, KT, QT could be just as likely as an under pair to the board or just over cards. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I don't want to be bullied by them, but I don't want to get all in with TPGK since I know its probably a coin flip against their range and I can get my money in when its more likely to be good. Usually these people have smaller stacks too, unless they just doubled up, so if I raise I get committed. I guess I'll just need to wait and bleed chips until I have a hand thats good enough to play for stacks.

[Teddie]

Just play hands like that for the draw purposes and fold even if your hit a J or T on the board. If they have a shortish stack calling the flop bet is the worst thing too do i think. Either fold or shove, I'd shove knowing i am miles ahead of his range.

[CaptVimes]

One thing I have noticed about Stars in particular is that the fast tables usually have the higher Flop%. There are a lot of 8,10,12 tabling setminers that play NL10 and they mostly stick to the normal tables, so as they don't time out probably. Single tablers/just for fun players hate having to wait on multitablers so they play the fast tables.

I look for stack sizes first and then Flop %. When you have more than 2 or 3 shorties on your table it really affects how you play. (Esp at a 9 player table) You have to tighten up somewhat because the implied odds are not there to play speculative hands against raises/re-raises from these guys.

[zyrrth]

The only thing I look for is stacksizes, more than 2 or 3 shortstacks and I'm not playing.

[threads13]

There is an interesting essay that related to this in Poker Essays 1(or 2, not) that asks what is the optimal number of bad players. I believe he concluded that 5 at a 10 table is best. If you take a logical guess from here if you have 5 bad(loose) players and 5 tight ones then the optimal VPIP for the table should probably be in the 60-70 percent area.