Table selection

[MrDarling]

This is one of my biggest leaks I think.

Am simply too lazy to employ a decent table selection.
All I do is open the tables with the highest % seen flop and thats about it.
If the table is full with too many SS, I'll leave; And rarely when an aggressive reg is sitting to my left I might leave as well.

So how do you table select?

[tame_deuces]

I watch the table for a min or two and see if I see anything I would like to play against (aka. horrible players). I like tables with a lot of limping or a lot of aggressive action. A table filled with 18/9/2s I don't bother with - it is boring.

This is easier for me because I play only for fun, so I generally only play 2 tables, so it is not a hassle to table select.

Table selection is very important, and it will affect your profits a lot. 1 very bad player changes table dynamics _a lot_, and the better the player you are the more of that is going to reward you and not the others.

[miaowmiaowchowface]

This is one of my biggest leaks I think.

Am simply too lazy to employ a decent table selection.
All I do is open the tables with the highest % seen flop and thats about it.
If the table is full with too many SS, I'll leave; And rarely when an aggressive reg is sitting to my left I might leave as well.

So how do you table select?

Meh, You can probably afford to select better but..

If I see one player at any table who I don't know or who is really awful with 500$+ I usually join (if I need more tables). This is my basis for selecting basically any table. That or a big VPIP

[MrDarling]

If I see one player at any table who I don't know or who is really awful with 500$+ I usually join (if I need more tables). This is my basis for selecting basically any table. That or a big VPIP

$500+ in what level?
And VPIP I presume you talk about few players and not just table average.

Yeah, when I play 4-6 tables I do look for at least one profitable player at my table. am not afraid of many $200NL regs, though there are a few that are harder to play against.

[miaowmiaowchowface]

If I see one player at any table who I don't know or who is really awful with 500$+ I usually join (if I need more tables). This is my basis for selecting basically any table. That or a big VPIP

$500+ in what level?
And VPIP I presume you talk about few players and not just table average.

Yeah, when I play 4-6 tables I do look for at least one profitable player at my table. am not afraid of many $200NL regs, though there are a few that are harder to play against.

all, seeing I'm playing mostly 600+. If I play 600 and theres plenty of 1000,2000 going I'll need more than one player. And as for VPIP I do use the table average (for full ring this is probably better than 6max) because you can quickly identify the EZ tables when theres a wide selection (eg. when you feel like playing some NL400, or you just want to avoid the tables with like <10% VPIP).

[MasterMike]

i just see what the size of the avg pot. typically it means that

A) someone has a lot of money

B) normally when a person has a lot of money at the .1/.25 level, they are pretty good at shipping them away

[MrDarling]

B) normally when a person has a lot of money at the .1/.25 level, they are pretty good at shipping them away

So you are implying that people who sits with big stacks are bad players and people who sits with little stacks are good players?

Think about it a little more please.

[Jauron]

B) normally when a person has a lot of money at the .1/.25 level, they are pretty good at shipping them away

So you are implying that people who sits with big stacks are bad players and people who sits with little stacks are good players?

Think about it a little more please.

If there is any validity in that second statement it probably falls under "low limit players do not adjust when playing super deep". They are just as willing to stack off with 100BB as they are with 500BB.

[jimmer]

I have a spread sheet with players who I have made notes on and I think are easy to beat. Therefore I first scroll though the list to see if they are online and playing a game/level I want to play.

Failing that, I usually watch a table for around 20-30 minutes. I'm trying to pick up as much information as I can about all the players. I'll quite often look through the hh as well.

I'm looking for two or three really tight players sat to my left. This is because if any one of them are on the button, it means i can limp in middle position and still have a good chance of being last to act on the flop. This in turn means i can play a loose game, which suits me on the lower levels.

Sometimes I can spend 1hr+ watching tables and this means I play far less poker than I should. But it also means I have a massive edge when i sit down as they have no info about me, yet I have loads about them and can therefore start playing straight away.

I realised years ago, that if i was given enough time at a table I can usually win more than i lose, purely because of the information I was picking up so i thought "Why am I paying to get this information by sitting at the table, when i could watch for free".

Sometimes a productive day could just be watching a table for an hour and getting some real good reads for me to use another day.

I'm not looking for any statistical information on the table or players. I just find players come and go too quickly and a table that has a lot of action one minute becomes very quiet the next.

I appreciate this is probably not the norm, but it works for me.

[kingetje]

i usually sit at an empty table and let the fish flock.....



otherwise i have made alot of notes so i try and search for those players

[lwestatbus]

I have some criteria for table selection but I play strictly FL or low buy-in tournies so they probably don't apply to most of you.

But what about this? I find that the nature of a table can change pretty quickly with the departure of just one or two players (especially if it's the person that tame_deuces mentioned). I've also had many, many tables when there's been a 30-40% turnover in just a few minutes and one or two where the whole table evaporated in just a few minutes.

I like jimmer's approach but would worry about investing this time in studying the table and then having the table change significantly.

I miss the system PokerRoom had (and I guess still has). In addition to player notes you could assign one of 5 or 6 colored dots to a player and these dots would show up by the player's name when you browsed tables in the lobby.

For what it's worth, I like average pot sizes at 6 times the big blind or higher with an average of 20-35% players to the flop. I love higher average pot sizes with lower percentages to the flop. I am deeply suspicious of higher %-to-the-flop tables and will usually not play them.

[xDiamond_CutteRx]

High % players/flop with low pot size is a favorite among many people, because it suggests loose-passive preflop play, and weak-tight postflop play.

High % players/flop with high avg. pot size implies a lot of loose players, with at least some aggression.

I much prefer tables with a high number of players to the flop, because it suggests to me that players are not being selective enough about their starting hands, and will make it difficult for them to play well later.

tbh though, I'm not very good about being selective, because I often just take what is available. If the game is bad, I'll leave, and if I see a good game, I'll get on the list, but I could probably be getting some better value, too.

[lwestatbus]

...and if I see a good game, I'll get on the list,...

That's another thing. I'll see a table in the lobby with really attractive stats with a waiting list 7 or more players deep. I just never count on a game retaining its character long enough to make waiting in that line worth while. Because I only play one table at a time I'm looking for the best game I can get into quickly and just won't sign up for a list more than one long.

[miaowmiaowchowface]

...and if I see a good game, I'll get on the list,...

That's another thing. I'll see a table in the lobby with really attractive stats with a waiting list 7 or more players deep. I just never count on a game retaining its character long enough to make waiting in that line worth while. Because I only play one table at a time I'm looking for the best game I can get into quickly and just won't sign up for a list more than one long.

why do u care, just go to the table when ur called, check if a fish is there, stay or leave

[lwestatbus]

why do u care, just go to the table when ur called, check if a fish is there, stay or leave

Because I just play one table at a time. I'm not going to wait around 30 minutes or more for a table that may be completely different from the way it is now.

BTW: I think that attractive tables tend to draw solid players. Over and over I've seen the character of a table change as more and more solid players come in. These observations aren't scientific but they make sense.