Question about table selection (more specifically pokerstars 10/20 6m) - Page 4

vmacosta · #31 09-12-2007, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The guy plays 10/20 regular and think he is a great pokerplayer. Im sure he got a good reason to not make real money at higher limits [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

*

OP, u shouldnt listen to what the big egos says in this thread. Rake is huge at $10/20 and since its a pretty low limit u need a big edge to really make $. U will not make any substantial moey out of 90% of the regulars.

I dont sit down at a table with only regulars and 1 fish. Its just to tricky to play if u multitable and ur edge is smaller then u think (only 1/5 of the fishmoney)

I think u need at least 2 unknowns at a table. Sit down, and leave if u see that one of the unknowns knows how to play (after 50 hands he is 32/19, AF 2.5... thats enough, dont play him... u dont need to play 353 hands and try to understand his weaknesses, just leave and avoid).

[/ QUOTE ]

kiddo,
do you have a large PT db? I only have like 50k hands on this comp so its not much use, but could you look up numbers to support your argument. I would have thought the difference in ev between 5 decent regulars and 5 good regulars would be small in comparison to the difference between 2 unknowns (assume 38/13 on average?) and one huge fish (50/5?). The trick is figuring out the difference between an average and a good regular i guess.

sethypooh21 · #32 09-12-2007, 03:52 PM

Jesus, I take a week off, and the old peen waving thread is replaced by a new, equally inane, peen waving thread.

vmacosta · #33 09-12-2007, 04:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus, I take a week off, and the old peen waving thread is replaced by a new, equally inane, peen waving thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

sethypooh, you have a large PT db, right? Can you weigh in on the discussion kiddo and I are having?

sethypooh21 · #34 09-12-2007, 04:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus, I take a week off, and the old peen waving thread is replaced by a new, equally inane, peen waving thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

sethypooh, you have a large PT db, right? Can you weigh in on the discussion kiddo and I are having?

[/ QUOTE ]

My intuition is with you, (that the difference between "TAGFISH" and real fish is bigger than between Solid TAGS and and tagfish) but I don't think I can offer empirical support because A) my 10/20 DB isn't big enough, and B) I'm not sure I have a good enough handle on who is a solid reg and who is a bad reg for the analysis to not be hopelessly biased.

And I think this actually cuts in your favor as well - even if one COULD beat poor playing TAGS for more than out and out fish (which I suppose is possible in an aggro game), the time spent figuring out which are the the poor playing tags and which aren't would probably be better spent just playing against people who make the same obvious pre and postflop mistakes.

Heisenb3rg · #35 09-12-2007, 04:52 PM

yeah im pretty confident its not even close...
Agreeing with costa.

But it also depends on the style matchups..

a weak 17/14/1.5 is going to do much better vs a 60/0/0.8 than a 60/30/4.0 that plays moronically agressive postflop and doesnt hand read well.

A thinking player may be able to exploit both types of fish equally, since they should be able to adjust their style.... Punishing the maniac hard with their TPTK type hands, and not folding..

Your edge over the nit will be to run him over when he has nothing and steal his blinds liberally, then make laydowns when they play back at you..

The amount you can make off this is fairly limited, because he will rarely be making big mistakes..
He's just forgoing a number of small +EV opportunities that you are not.

Big fish on the other hand are going to putting in whole BB drawing dead, semi frequently or NEVER charge you for value betting them...
The same will apply if a NIT is playing these players, since vs LP's, a postflop style similar to a nits is probabily correct.

BAD TAGs still semi-bluff so, your forced to pay off or fold the best hand at times.. LPs rarely will.

Because of the structure of this game, you simply cannot make a huge winrate vs playing these types of players.

These numerous small edges can end up being significant, but once you subtract the 10/20 rake, its probabily neglible..

CardSharpCook · #36 09-12-2007, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would spend more time on seat selection against regulars. Put three regulars to my right and I'll play all day - to my left and I'll leave.

YT

[/ QUOTE ]

I use the opposite seat selection. I'd rather be 3bet by a known than an unknown. I'd rather have a calling station act in front of me than behind me. I'd rather button raise vs. a guy who folds 65% of his BBs instead of calling with 70%.

XXsooted · #37 09-12-2007, 09:46 PM

Guys, thanks for the helpful responses. I kind of knew this thread would get like this so I almost didn't ask, but the thought that I might be overly nitty about table selection was something that would really bother me whenever I decided not to sit at a certain table. I wanted to know how other good players handle this situation. Thanks again.

kiddo · #38 09-13-2007, 08:01 AM

I dont think we disagree on this. I agree that it probably is better, or at least as good, to play against 1 big fish and 5 decent regulars, rather then 3 decent regulars and 2 38/13.

But u dont need to look in PT, because u shouldnt sit at any of these tables. (or if u do, u shouldnt hope to make a lot, even if u are good).

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.

YertleTurtle · #39 09-13-2007, 01:51 PM

God I hope that regulars don't toss 65% of their BBs versus a button raise. I guess I'm used to regular meaning "good" and sitting to their right meaning "getting 3-bet all day long". I definitely would rather have a calling station on my right than my left.

YT

freshjuuuiice · #40 09-13-2007, 01:57 PM

[ 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.