Question about table selection (more specifically pokerstars 10/20 6m)

[vmacosta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think what Im trying to say is this: When u want to pick a table wehere u need to have a pretty high BB/100 (because limit isnt that high) treat all regulars as +-0 and try to find a table with at least 2 players that make obvious misstakes. Its not enough with 1 bad player.

You are looking for guys that will call 1BB on turn with 4 outs, not guys that bluffcheckraise turn with 9 outs when it should be obvious that u are going to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is easier said than done. It is fairly hard to judge a players ability based on one or two erronous plays that you notice when table selecting... who is to say that what he is doing is wrong ? Do you know what the correct 'strategy' is for each individual decision you/opponent faces for each hand played? no. So what this "bad player" is doing could be distant from your strategy, who is to say your strategy isnt also flawed? Also, quick rash judgements like "ooh im going to sit at his table he just called the turn with 4 outs " can cost you a lot of money. This attitude expemplifies a great lack of judgement on your part.

[/ QUOTE ]

juiiiiiccccceeeee,
its pretty obvious that what kiddo is saying is to look for high vpip/low pfr players (45/10, etc.) and assume they make big mistakes on the postflop streets as well. If you decide to regularly contribute to these forums you'll quickly realize he's not dumb and knows its rare to have enough hands/knowledge on someone to be able to evaluate his postflop play with any certainty.

[freshjuuuiice]

[ QUOTE ]


juiiiiiccccceeeee,
its pretty obvious that what kiddo is saying is to look for high vpip/low pfr players (45/10, etc.) and assume they make big mistakes on the postflop streets as well. If you decide to regularly contribute to these forums you'll quickly realize he's not dumb and knows its rare to have enough hands/knowledge on someone to be able to evaluate his postflop play with any certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]
And what I am saying is that it is dangerous to make these assumptions. If you know that it is hard to judge a players post flop play with a small sample of hands, then why are you saying that you should assume that the (40/10) player is making mistakes post flop? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Heisenb3rg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


juiiiiiccccceeeee,
its pretty obvious that what kiddo is saying is to look for high vpip/low pfr players (45/10, etc.) and assume they make big mistakes on the postflop streets as well. If you decide to regularly contribute to these forums you'll quickly realize he's not dumb and knows its rare to have enough hands/knowledge on someone to be able to evaluate his postflop play with any certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]
And what I am saying is that it is dangerous to make these assumptions. If you know that it is hard to judge a players post flop play with a small sample of hands, then why are you saying that you should assume that the (40/10) player is making mistakes post flop? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Because on average players with those preflop statistics make much more postflop mistakes than players with 30/20 preflop staticists..

So, why not use the limited information you have, join the game, then re-asses once you have 40 hands or so?

Some information is better than no information obv, even if its not always accurate.. Its not like your stuck to play at that table forever..

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
its pretty obvious that what kiddo is saying is to look for high vpip/low pfr players (45/10, etc.) and assume they make big mistakes on the postflop streets as well. If you decide to regularly contribute to these forums you'll quickly realize he's not dumb and knows its rare to have enough hands/knowledge on someone to be able to evaluate his postflop play with any certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep, thanks, I thnik preflop misstakes is more important then anything else because if u dont do this right, u normally arent very good... if u dont know the basics u normally (yes, normally, not always) are a loser

basically, im just trying to give our OP an idea of how I do when I choose a table at 10/20

and i think poker is like driving, 95% are sure they are better then average

[XXsooted]

[ QUOTE ]
God I hope that regulars don't toss 65% of their BBs versus a button raise.


[/ QUOTE ]

It'd be correct to raise almost any 2 vs a guy like this...I do have a regular in my pt that tosses 71% over 1100 hands (including co and sb steals too)

[disjunction]

I studied this issue a little bit a few months ago. This is my result over 350,000 hands by # of fish at the table. I defined fish here as VPIP > X%, and I didn't use PFR% in the definition. Unfortunately even though it's not a big deal, I'd rather not say what X is. If you guessed, you'd be close.

This is filtered for 5-6 handed. Limits range from .10-.20 to 15/30, I'd say the average is 5/10. So this is after rake of a couple of BB/100.

You can see how bad my table selection sucked before I did this study. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

# of fish | <font color="red"> Bets Won |</font> <font color="green"># Hands</font> | BB/100

0 <font color="red">371</font> <font color="green"> 68168</font> .54
1 <font color="red">591</font> <font color="green"> 102254</font> .58
2 <font color="red">664</font> <font color="green"> 51699</font> 1.28
3 <font color="red">279</font> <font color="green"> 14833</font> 1.88
4 <font color="red">79</font> <font color="green"> 2784</font> 2.84
5 <font color="red">-26</font> <font color="green"> 216</font> -12.4 </font>

[milesdyson]

that is pretty awesome. i wonder if other big samples show the same. i'm guessing X is 45%

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm guessing X is 45%

[/ QUOTE ]

miles,

[censored] you

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

[vmacosta]

[ QUOTE ]
I studied this issue a little bit a few months ago. This is my result over 350,000 hands by # of fish at the table. I defined fish here as VPIP &gt; X%, and I didn't use PFR% in the definition. Unfortunately even though it's not a big deal, I'd rather not say what X is. If you guessed, you'd be close.

This is filtered for 5-6 handed. Limits range from .10-.20 to 15/30, I'd say the average is 5/10. So this is after rake of a couple of BB/100.

You can see how bad my table selection sucked before I did this study. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

# of fish | <font color="red"> Bets Won |</font> <font color="green"># Hands</font> | BB/100

0 <font color="red">371</font> <font color="green"> 68168</font> .54
1 <font color="red">591</font> <font color="green"> 102254</font> .58
2 <font color="red">664</font> <font color="green"> 51699</font> 1.28
3 <font color="red">279</font> <font color="green"> 14833</font> 1.88
4 <font color="red">79</font> <font color="green"> 2784</font> 2.84
5 <font color="red">-26</font> <font color="green"> 216</font> -12.4 </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

disjunction,
this is really interesting results. thanks for posting them.

[Heisenb3rg]

[ QUOTE ]
disjunction,
this is really interesting results. thanks for posting them.

[/ QUOTE ]

im semi lazy but would like to do a similar test in my database... wherre is the filter for htis stuff?