Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.

[witeknite]

I think you are missing the point some when you say it's hard enough to find a table without too many TAG's. If you get a seat at a table with 6 TAG's and three fish it might be bad. The thing is though, if I'm at that table and the three fish are all lined up on my right, I'm not leaving until they do. Let's look at it from the stand-point of pre-flop position (i.e. EP/MP/LP). Then from relative position post-flop.

EP:

There really isn't any change from EP, since EP sucks to bad to get much help. You probably want to play as tight as normal.

MP:

Here you get first crack at isolating the bad limpers. If, on the rare occasion, none of them limp, you can really tighten up your starting hands. You will probably only be playing strong hands worth an open-raise. This requires any good opponent to only play 3-bet worthy hands giving you good info.

LP:

If one of the TAG's raise from EP-MP, you get to see how many fish CC the raise. If enough do, you will end up being able to CC as well with good drawing hands like little suited broadways and any PP.

All these reasons are for pre-flop. After the flop, draws and big hands become easier. With a weak draw, you can check, let a tag bet and by the time the action returns to you, the pot has grown due to the fish calls, thus giving you better pot-odds. With a strong draw, c/ring for value should be easier and more effective. You get more calls by never facing a fish with two cold, and you have better chances of a TAG on your left betting than if a fish was in that seat.

Money on a poker table tends to move in a clockwise direction. Isn't it more likely to move quicker from a bad player, than a good one?

WiteKnite

[witeknite]

I'd get up from a table with 3 fish if I had two+ tags on my right. The exception being if the bad players are playing every hand. Then I might stay until they bust out which shouldn't take long.

In another post I mention money on a poker table trending in a clockwise direction. Bad players push it left quickly, good players only let it trickle. Consider them as dams in the cash river at hold'em. It's a lot harder to fish on the low water side of a dam. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

WiteKnite

[bisonbison]

It is practical. I 8-table Party 3/6, and on an average night, the only difference between a good table and a mediocre table is where the open seat is. If the open seat is bueno, I sit. If the open seat is malo, I sit and quit so that they don't pester me anymore.

[Pov]

My .02 is probably worth less than .01, but I am very much in Bison's camp on this particular post.

Poker is not a battle to beat the TAG. It's a battle for the sucker money. The ability to isolation raise against a sucker before another TAG can isolation raise *you* out of it is more important than anything else for me at the table.

TAG's raising behind me are just building my odds since I only limp when this is precisely what I'm looking for. If you have 2-3 loose-passive callers in front of you and you limp with your 76s then end up in a 5 or 6 way raised pot with built-in checkraise the whole damn field potential . . . tell me how that isn't an absolute gold mine because it is my dream setup that I look for each and every time I play.

CPK's thinking makes sense and it's not that I disagree with what he's saying (well at least most of it) but it simply isn't going to make as much money because you can't fully exploit the weak players with that strategy. I'd rather be the agressor making them adjust to me than wait until after they do their thing and limit my choices.

[cpk]

If you have made it so the people to your left are really loose, you can only really open-raise with legitimate hands and have to fold most of everything else, since they will be calling two cold and you can't take a shot at the blinds with weak hands anymore.

This is nonsense. I would much rather play legit hands against people who cold-call two bets against them than grind it out stealing the blinds with very marginal hands--occasionally being isolated by tight, aggressive players with me taking far the worst of it.

You can argue all you want about how that will rarely happen--but because you're stealing with hands that have very thin margins, it doesn't take much to really screw you over.

I think it's scary how firmly you state your case and provide some very dangerous advice for people who don't know better, because your case sounds okay on the surface.

That's funny, I was about to say the same thing about bisonbison.

Perhaps part of the other philosophical difference between bison and myself is that he 8-tables and I 2-table at best. The reason is merely practical--I have a laptop with a 14" screen, and I do not have the time needed to pay off a $1k+ investment in the extra hardware needed to play at 4 or more tables.

I make most of my LL money B&M, because there are games around here where you can find a table full of players who are 50+/<5 or 50+/20. I have played enough time in such an environment to know what works and what doesn't.

Whenever you do play, you will often be essentially in EP. The tighties fold to you, the loose players all limp in, and your absolute position will often be terrible those times you are in EP and MP.

First of all, if you are playing at a table with 7 other tighties and only 2 loose players, you've got more problems than relative position (except at about 15/30 and higher). And, besides, in such games I tend to want tight passives to my immediate left for the exact reason you suggest.

Otherwise, when you are in LP, you will act after most of the weak players to begin with (except perhaps the 2 blinds). Therefore, you will be in great position in the situations where you should be playing most of your hands.

I'm going to repeat this one more time, because everyone seems to forget this: Marginal hands cannot stand preflop raises. If you have aggressives to your left, marginal hands cannot be profitable. Period.

Think. Why were you told, as a newbie, to muck 22 in EP but play it in a largish pot for one bet on the button? With the aggressives to your left, how can you ever play 22 in EP? If you have the passive players to your left, you can limp in with small pairs and suited aces in EP with relative impunity.

[cpk]

Poker is not a battle to beat the TAG. It's a battle for the sucker money. The ability to isolation raise against a sucker before another TAG can isolation raise *you* out of it is more important than anything else for me at the table.

1. You can't argue that I'm out of line worrying about being isolated by the TA when that is rare and then turn around and make this argument.

2. If you are in LP with a good multiway hand with a good, multiway pot, you can call cold when the TA raises--the large pot and great potential of your hand means that you are no longer in a marginal situation.

3. The only thing having the TA in the seat on the left buys you is the ability to check to him when he isolates you and then raise to build the pot (or bet into him to protect your hand). This is not as great as it sounds, because you sacrifice control of the hand to do this.

4. If you are instead to his left, you have the option to raise in order to protect your hand or call to build the pot. If you know that the players behind you will call 2 cold, you can raise anyway.

[habsfanca11]

Thanks Bison! Up until this week I would have sided with the counter arguement. On Monday I was lucky enough to find 1)LA weak, 2)LP, 3)calling station, 4)fish, 5) me, 6)TP, 7)TP, 8)changing 9)TAG, 10) LAG. It was beautiful! I knew I had better cards than the limpers and if I got three bet I knew where I stood and if I had odds to call and see a flop. Resulted in my only winning session this week. So while I may not be playing well, the concepts you have illustrated are exploitable (easily). Thanks for the post and the ensuing discussion. Cheers!

[Jake (The Snake)]

I completely agree with this concept but have trouble employing it myself at times.

How do you do about finding the good seats (weak opponents)? Do you just sit down and watch a few orbits? Or is there an easier way to do this without datamining (my computer can only handle so much)?

I feel like when I concentrate hard at finding the perfect seat, it takes me like 30 minutes or more to finally get all good tables. Then, sure enough, within an hour or so, the seat is no longer good.

[Kevin]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what I think (which doesn't matter because I admittedly suck). As a noob, I have thought about this thread all friggin night trying to give Bison the upper edge because, hey, he's Bison.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bison,
It is so great that you have such a fan club. You ought to do a college tour and charge admission for lectures [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Seriously, though, thanks for the post. Good stuff and a great reminder for the "why's"

Later

[Jake (The Snake)]

why reply to my post? Now you make it look like I'm saying I'm a noob!

bah.