United Poker Forum  

Server Time: 8/28/2008 12:58:38 AM PACIFIC  
On table selection..., stdioh, 17. Apr 2003 12:28
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
I thought I would put in my two cents on table selection with a tale of last night's session, for the benefit of any newbies out there who care to read it.

So I get to Brantford and there is a list for the 5-10 and a list for the 10-20, each about 1.5 horus long, but there is no list for the 20-40. I get on the first two lists and go for dinner with the lovely Wren. When we return, the lists have hardly budged, but I decide to dip my toe into the usually sharky 20-40 game. The reason? There were two players in the game that were easy targets. Thus I was confident that I could play a +EV game just playing those two and staying more or less out of the way of the other players. I sat for half an hour and was fortunate enough to make 5 big bets. Then both action players got up, and so did I. What I did here was play at a table that I wouldn't normally that was filled with players better than me, but I had an edge because of the two big fish there. I can still beat this table because of these guys. So now instead of spending a half hour reading, I spend it playing. Few people count their hours waiting for tables and it cuts into your bottom line to be sitting around a poker lounge. That's not to say that you should play in a game that you can't beat, but it is ok to sit in something that you're not beating by much, so long as you're sure that you're not a dog there.

Now I went to wait for 10 minutes or so and then got called to the 5-10. It is a game that I loathe, but it is also something that I can crush. As long as I'm not there for too long I don't lose my patience and I don't mind taking a beat here or there. I played there for 10 minutes and dragged the last pot before I moved to 10-20. I made $17.50 there - peanuts on the one hand, but better than sitting in a chair waiting. I'm positive I was beating that 5-10 for at least 1 BB/hour, so maybe my 10 minutes was worth $3 - fine. My sitting around is worth $0.

Now I get to the 10-20 and I got seated right away on the table I wanted. This was the perfect table, so I'm going to describe each of the players. I was seated in the 4 seat. I really like seats 4 and 7 because they give me the best view of all of the other players at the table and I'm not too far away from the cards. I hate seats 1 and 10. For those that don't know, seat 1 is immediately to the left of the dealer and they go around the table from there - seat 10 is immediately to the dealer's right.

Seat 1 at this table contained a giant fish. He wore a cheap suit and a cheap tie, loose around his collar. He was limping with K9o under the gun and pounding it on hands where he made top pair without a good kicker. I was happy to be a couple of seats after him for isolation purposes. Seats 2 and 3 were competent regular solid players. I didn't want to fight over pots with either of them, nor they with me or eachother. I was very happy to have position on them because when one of them isolated the fish I could decide to three-bet my monster or muck my marginal hand...and if they passed I would have my clear shot. I could avoid them when they were on a hand, but they could not avoid me...it was nice.

Seat 5 contained Mr. Big Blind. It seemed that this guy missed almost every big blind while out for a cigarette. This is also perfect for me because he would come back and post big, surrender small, and I would be in great position on a hand with lots of dead money very often. Any time I had great cards my chance of stealing all that blind money was the best of anybody's at the table.

Seat 6 contained a typical dumb kid. Somebody who started out as a 'dedicated newbie' but lost his dedication early becasue he hit some lucky hands. He knew enough about playing and was ABC most of the time with some tricks up his sleeve. I'm sure he could beat the 5-10 that is usually spread and he was probably making money off the others at this table, but he was also donating to me and the solid players on my right. He didn't have experience with advanced plays, so you could always fold him off of top pair by checkraising the turn on a board that was the slightest big scary. He always paid off with flushes nomatter how obvious it was that you had a tight. One hand Jeff (the solid player in seat 3) had AT while this guy had A8 and the turn board was AAT8 (I don't recall the order they came out in though) and this guy 4-bet, called Jeff's 5-bet, and still raised Jeff's river bet. Needless to say, I was glad to have him there...and he was a nice guy too. I love bad players who are full of pleasant things to say.

Seat 7 was a rolling rock. What I mean is that he saw a lot of flops, but could be folded off just about anything. The result was that he would sweeten every pot and as long as you folded every non-nut hand to his very rare action he was powerless - though the fish payed him off when he made a hand, as did the 9 seat ... but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Seat 8 was an older guy wearing a hat for some industrial equipment manufacturer. He fancied himself a good player and had some tricks up his sleeve, but he leaked tells like a sieve. When I knew I had him beat he would bluff off a free river bet that couldn't possibly fold me off top pair because of his massive tells. Still, he was able to take some good pots here and there and get paid off by the worst of it. I wouldn't imagine him to be a winning poker player - quite the opposite, but at this table he might have even been marginally +ev ... maybe on track to make $5 per hour.

Now seat 9 is my very favourite player type to play against. They are few and far between, but wonderful. Fish like the seat 1 are unpredictable. They play good hands and punish you. They make draws to gutshots without pot odds and punish you. They make nothing and they pay you a little. You can make a lot of money from them, but there is risk and loss. This seat 9 was no risk to play. She was wonderful. About 55 years old and it looks like she learned to play poker when her last kid left home recently. She probably read somebody like Lee Jones and ended her education in poker there in order to go to the casino and make some big bucks. All she knew were starting hands and she stuck to them like clockwork. All you needed to beat her were to know standard charts of hands to play in various positions and there she was with one of the available hands. She always bet when she had a hand. What made her the best though is that she never folded when she was drawn out on. She was so convinced that other players a) were terrible and b) were going to play good cards anyway, that she couldn't fold anything that was playable on the flop. Her tells were outrageously easy to read too. One hand she raised in late position and I was able to put her on Jacks or Queens there and then. When the flop came all low she bet her overpair and got calls from the seat 1 fish and the seat 8 player. The turn made brought lots of straight potential to the board and the river even more. She bet the turn and both called and on the river the seat one fish bet out. Now the almost solid player raised. At this point, every decent player knew that the river card had brought a wheel to the fish and a higher straight to the raiser. She hummed and hawed and looked dissapointed that other players were stupid enough to pay her off with draws (just think!) and then called 2 bets on the river. Of course the seat 1 fish raised and the raiser now just called hoping to rope her in for one more...which he did. When her hand lost she stood up and squinted at the board trying to figure out how she was winning on the turn and ended up with a 3rd best hand on the river. Every time she went broke she would leave and come back with less money than the last time. I would imagine she was tracking her husband down at the roulette wheel and getting cash from him and he was giving less and less. Finally she was buying in for $140 plus one lone green chip. Then she went for a while and was blinded off just before she got back...too bad...I really wanted her to stay.

Oh, seat 10. Seat 10 was an asian kid who was far too fancy for his own good. He's probably the sort who will make a great player some day, but he's inexperienced and looked about 12. Looks can be deceiving, but this guy really didn't understand the idea of playing to your opponents 1 level above them. He was making fancy moves against opponents who didn't have a clue. He was also making fancy moves that were very deceptive, but just couldn't make any money. For instance, he would three bet the flop on an up/down straight draw with no other piece of it and with players to act after him, thus giving protection to the made hands behind him and scaring them off of paying him off if he did make his hand. He was easy, in this respect, to use as a tool to an end. When I was playing in a hand with him, I just didn't worry about reading him and treated him as I would a randomish maniacal fish. I wouldn't try to isolate him, but I wouldn't be scared off either. Basically I was playing my cards against him with the assumption that he would make at least one mistake per hand that he would win to deny him a big bet and at least one mistake per hand he would lose to cost him a big bet. So I pretty much figured I was making 1 big bet per hand that I got into with him...maybe 10% of the hands I played, so right there I'm making $2 per hand in equity.

Now each of these players were in the perfect position doing just the right kinds of things and they worked well together. You could get in crazy hands where you and the fish would be eachother up and drag along the calling station the whole way. There were hands where you could pull any and every trick to your advantage. It was a table for an olympic card player to show off his prowess and I slaughtered it. I figure this may have been the single bets table I've yet ever played at. I think I was making 2 big bets per hour there. After 3 hours I was ahead by 8 bills (it's also nice at a table like this when you get good cards) and it was time to head home for bed.

The important thing here is that I was really making $20 per hour by sitting at this table, above all considerations. I'd say that I normally beat 10-20 for 1 BB per hour...sometimes more on a great table...my hourly rate fluctuates between 1 and 1.5 BB/hour at any rate. Well, if I'm losing on a table like this, I know that I'm going to lose $20/hour less with these ninnies than at a regular table with the same cards and if I'm winning I'm going to win $20/hour more than at a usual table. Really, by virtue of doing what I do, I'm getting paid off handsomely for sitting here. A lot of beginners make the mistake of thinking that they are great and that everybody else is terrible and thus they can beat any game spread. Well maybe that is true and maybe not...maybe you are the next Stu Ungar. But I guarantee you this. If you pick the right table you're going to make a lot more than if you pick the wrong table. There are players who go above and beyong the call when it comes to donating bets and when you get them at your table, treat them nicely please. Compliment them on the hands that they win and tell clean jokes. We want them coming back to play next week.

I hope that this stream of consciousness helps some of you when thinking about where you want to sit down the next time you enter the local cardroom.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: On table selection..., Andrew Wells, 17. Apr 2003 23:28
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
"Rolling rock" is a great label, I'll remember that one!
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: On table selection..., Roy Cooke, 18. Apr 2003 10:52
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Great post! Very thoughtful !

Roy Cooke

on 17. Apr 2003 12:28 stdioh wrote:
> I thought I would put in my two cents on table selection with a tale of last
> night's session, for the benefit of any newbies out there who care to read it.
>
> So I get to Brantford and there is a list for the 5-10 and a list for the
> 10-20, each about 1.5 horus long, but there is no list for the 20-40. I get on
> the first two lists and go for dinner with the lovely Wren. When we return, the
> lists have hardly budged, but I decide to dip my toe into the usually sharky
> 20-40 game. The reason? There were two players in the game that were easy
> targets. Thus I was confident that I could play a +EV game just playing those
> two and staying more or less out of the way of the other players. I sat for half
> an hour and was fortunate enough to make 5 big bets. Then both action players
> got up, and so did I. What I did here was play at a table that I wouldn't
> normally that was filled with players better than me, but I had an edge because
> of the two big fish there. I can still beat this table because of these guys. So
> now instead of spending a half hour reading, I spend it playing. Few people
> count their hours waiting for tables and it cuts into your bottom line to be
> sitting around a poker lounge. That's not to say that you should play in a game
> that you can't beat, but it is ok to sit in something that you're not beating by
> much, so long as you're sure that you're not a dog there.
>
> Now I went to wait for 10 minutes or so and then got called to the 5-10. It is
> a game that I loathe, but it is also something that I can crush. As long as I'm
> not there for too long I don't lose my patience and I don't mind taking a beat
> here or there. I played there for 10 minutes and dragged the last pot before I
> moved to 10-20. I made $17.50 there - peanuts on the one hand, but better than
> sitting in a chair waiting. I'm positive I was beating that 5-10 for at least 1
> BB/hour, so maybe my 10 minutes was worth $3 - fine. My sitting around is worth
> $0.
>
> Now I get to the 10-20 and I got seated right away on the table I wanted. This
> was the perfect table, so I'm going to describe each of the players. I was
> seated in the 4 seat. I really like seats 4 and 7 because they give me the best
> view of all of the other players at the table and I'm not too far away from the
> cards. I hate seats 1 and 10. For those that don't know, seat 1 is immediately
> to the left of the dealer and they go around the table from there - seat 10 is
> immediately to the dealer's right.
>
> Seat 1 at this table contained a giant fish. He wore a cheap suit and a cheap
> tie, loose around his collar. He was limping with K9o under the gun and pounding
> it on hands where he made top pair without a good kicker. I was happy to be a
> couple of seats after him for isolation purposes. Seats 2 and 3 were competent
> regular solid players. I didn't want to fight over pots with either of them, nor
> they with me or eachother. I was very happy to have position on them because
> when one of them isolated the fish I could decide to three-bet my monster or
> muck my marginal hand...and if they passed I would have my clear shot. I could
> avoid them when they were on a hand, but they could not avoid me...it was
> nice.
>
> Seat 5 contained Mr. Big Blind. It seemed that this guy missed almost every big
> blind while out for a cigarette. This is also perfect for me because he would
> come back and post big, surrender small, and I would be in great position on a
> hand with lots of dead money very often. Any time I had great cards my chance of
> stealing all that blind money was the best of anybody's at the table.
>
> Seat 6 contained a typical dumb kid. Somebody who started out as a 'dedicated
> newbie' but lost his dedication early becasue he hit some lucky hands. He knew
> enough about playing and was ABC most of the time with some tricks up his
> sleeve. I'm sure he could beat the 5-10 that is usually spread and he was
> probably making money off the others at this table, but he was also donating to
> me and the solid players on my right. He didn't have experience with advanced
> plays, so you could always fold him off of top pair by checkraising the turn on
> a board that was the slightest big scary. He always paid off with flushes
> nomatter how obvious it was that you had a tight. One hand Jeff (the solid
> player in seat 3) had AT while this guy had A8 and the turn board was AAT8 (I
> don't recall the order they came out in though) and this guy 4-bet, called
> Jeff's 5-bet, and still raised Jeff's river bet. Needless to say, I was glad to
> have him there...and he was a nice guy too. I love bad players who are full of
> pleasant things to say.
>
> Seat 7 was a rolling rock. What I mean is that he saw a lot of flops, but could
> be folded off just about anything. The result was that he would sweeten every
> pot and as long as you folded every non-nut hand to his very rare action he was
> powerless - though the fish payed him off when he made a hand, as did the 9 seat
> ... but I'm getting ahead of myself.
>
> Seat 8 was an older guy wearing a hat for some industrial equipment
> manufacturer. He fancied himself a good player and had some tricks up his
> sleeve, but he leaked tells like a sieve. When I knew I had him beat he would
> bluff off a free river bet that couldn't possibly fold me off top pair because
> of his massive tells. Still, he was able to take some good pots here and there
> and get paid off by the worst of it. I wouldn't imagine him to be a winning
> poker player - quite the opposite, but at this table he might have even been
> marginally +ev ... maybe on track to make $5 per hour.
>
> Now seat 9 is my very favourite player type to play against. They are few and
> far between, but wonderful. Fish like the seat 1 are unpredictable. They play
> good hands and punish you. They make draws to gutshots without pot odds and
> punish you. They make nothing and they pay you a little. You can make a lot of
> money from them, but there is risk and loss. This seat 9 was no risk to play.
> She was wonderful. About 55 years old and it looks like she learned to play
> poker when her last kid left home recently. She probably read somebody like Lee
> Jones and ended her education in poker there in order to go to the casino and
> make some big bucks. All she knew were starting hands and she stuck to them like
> clockwork. All you needed to beat her were to know standard charts of hands to
> play in various positions and there she was with one of the available hands. She
> always bet when she had a hand. What made her the best though is that she never
> folded when she was drawn out on. She was so convinced that other players a)
> were terrible and b) were going to play good cards anyway, that she couldn't
> fold anything that was playable on the flop. Her tells were outrageously easy to
> read too. One hand she raised in late position and I was able to put her on
> Jacks or Queens there and then. When the flop came all low she bet her overpair
> and got calls from the seat 1 fish and the seat 8 player. The turn made brought
> lots of straight potential to the board and the river even more. She bet the
> turn and both called and on the river the seat one fish bet out. Now the almost
> solid player raised. At this point, every decent player knew that the river card
> had brought a wheel to the fish and a higher straight to the raiser. She hummed
> and hawed and looked dissapointed that other players were stupid enough to pay
> her off with draws (just think!) and then called 2 bets on the river. Of course
> the seat 1 fish raised and the raiser now just called hoping to rope her in for
> one more...which he did. When her hand lost she stood up and squinted at the
> board trying to figure out how she was winning on the turn and ended up with a
> 3rd best hand on the river. Every time she went broke she would leave and come
> back with less money than the last time. I would imagine she was tracking her
> husband down at the roulette wheel and getting cash from him and he was giving
> less and less. Finally she was buying in for $140 plus one lone green chip. Then
> she went for a while and was blinded off just before she got back...too bad...I
> really wanted her to stay.
>
> Oh, seat 10. Seat 10 was an asian kid who was far too fancy for his own good.
> He's probably the sort who will make a great player some day, but he's
> inexperienced and looked about 12. Looks can be deceiving, but this guy really
> didn't understand the idea of playing to your opponents 1 level above them. He
> was making fancy moves against opponents who didn't have a clue. He was also
> making fancy moves that were very deceptive, but just couldn't make any money.
> For instance, he would three bet the flop on an up/down straight draw with no
> other piece of it and with players to act after him, thus giving protection to
> the made hands behind him and scaring them off of paying him off if he did make
> his hand. He was easy, in this respect, to use as a tool to an end. When I was
> playing in a hand with him, I just didn't worry about reading him and treated
> him as I would a randomish maniacal fish. I wouldn't try to isolate him, but I
> wouldn't be scared off either. Basically I was playing my cards against him with
> the assumption that he would make at least one mistake per hand that he would
> win to deny him a big bet and at least one mistake per hand he would lose to
> cost him a big bet. So I pretty much figured I was making 1 big bet per hand
> that I got into with him...maybe 10% of the hands I played, so right there I'm
> making $2 per hand in equity.
>
> Now each of these players were in the perfect position doing just the right
> kinds of things and they worked well together. You could get in crazy hands
> where you and the fish would be eachother up and drag along the calling station
> the whole way. There were hands where you could pull any and every trick to your
> advantage. It was a table for an olympic card player to show off his prowess and
> I slaughtered it. I figure this may have been the single bets table I've yet
> ever played at. I think I was making 2 big bets per hour there. After 3 hours I
> was ahead by 8 bills (it's also nice at a table like this when you get good
> cards) and it was time to head home for bed.
>
> The important thing here is that I was really making $20 per hour by sitting at
> this table, above all considerations. I'd say that I normally beat 10-20 for 1
> BB per hour...sometimes more on a great table...my hourly rate fluctuates
> between 1 and 1.5 BB/hour at any rate. Well, if I'm losing on a table like this,
> I know that I'm going to lose $20/hour less with these ninnies than at a regular
> table with the same cards and if I'm winning I'm going to win $20/hour more than
> at a usual table. Really, by virtue of doing what I do, I'm getting paid off
> handsomely for sitting here. A lot of beginners make the mistake of thinking
> that they are great and that everybody else is terrible and thus they can beat
> any game spread. Well maybe that is true and maybe not...maybe you are the next
> Stu Ungar. But I guarantee you this. If you pick the right table you're going to
> make a lot more than if you pick the wrong table. There are players who go above
> and beyong the call when it comes to donating bets and when you get them at your
> table, treat them nicely please. Compliment them on the hands that they win and
> tell clean jokes. We want them coming back to play next week.
>
> I hope that this stream of consciousness helps some of you when thinking about
> where you want to sit down the next time you enter the local cardroom.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Thanks, Roy!, Poker Crone, 19. Apr 2003 08:04
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
For validating that this was good info...
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: On table selection..., stdioh, 21. Apr 2003 08:29
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Thanks Roy. Your opinion means a lot.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Thanks so much! Wonderful and very helpful.On table selection..., Poker Crone, 19. Apr 2003 08:03
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Re: Thanks so much! Wonderful and very helpful. On table selection...
I've been stuck on some sort of learning-curve plateau, and you have just busted my thinking wide open. I really appreciate your taking the time to log your s-of-a!!
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Thanks so much! Wonderful and very helpful.On table selection..., stdioh, 21. Apr 2003 08:31
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Glad I could be a help. Yes, table selection is something that I've gained more and more appreciation for the longer I've played. 90% of poker is the people you play against and 10% is how you play - I truely believe that. Let me stake a decent beginner in a game full of rank beginners any day.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Thanks so much! Wonderful and very helpful.On table selection..., shorn, 21. Apr 2003 08:34
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 21. Apr 2003 08:31 stdioh wrote:
> Glad I could be a help. Yes, table selection is something that I've gained more and more
> appreciation for the longer I've played. 90% of poker is the people you play against and
> 10% is how you play - I truely believe that. Let me stake a decent beginner in a game full
> of rank beginners any day.

I thought your post was good too stdioh...quite funny in parts as well. Table selection is something that I am not as good at and need to pay more attention to, especially on-line (where it is easier to choose what table to play).
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Thanks so much! Wonderful and very helpful.On table selection..., stdioh, 21. Apr 2003 09:05
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
On-line table selection can be easy sometimes. Look at the average pot size and when it is disgustingly big, sit and play :)
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: On table selection..., flintsword, 19. Apr 2003 08:30
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Posts like this are really helpful. After reading your dissection of your 10-20 table, I realize that I need to work a lot on categorizing players into better defined types. How many basic types of players do you use? A list of basic player types would be very helpful to improve! Thanks for a deep and complete analysis of your table.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: On table selection..., stdioh, 21. Apr 2003 08:51
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
It isn't so much that I have a set number of player types, but that there are a number of factors on which people deviate from ABC play. I guess it goes like this:

Rank Beginner: A player who has never played before and just came over from Caribean Stud.

Dedicated Newbie: A player who has read Sklansky, Brunson, Lee Jones, and Clutier and now thinks that he is much better than he really is. Usually can beat a loose 5-10 game marginally and is very predictable and easy to read.

ABC: A player who was once a dedicated newbie and hasn't bothered to improve - AKA 5-10 pro. Somebody who grinds out small wins at the cheapest table.

Rock: Very tight and very weak - can be folded off of all non-monsters and only raises AA and KK preflop.

Loose fish: A player who may or may not know how to play, but is addicted to playing bad cards. He plays his K7o in early position without a second thought. Often Greeks are in this category.

Maniac: Any hand that is worth limping with is worth raising with and any hand that is worth raising with is worth reraising with.

Calling Station: Any hand that has any potential to improve at all is worth a call, but only bet out with a high quality hand. A calling station is one that you want to bet at the whole way, but fold to agression from. They will always pay a gutshot the whole way, but won't slowplay it once they make it, nor will they bluff if they do not. Calling stations are afraid to fold a winning hand, but also afraid to put more money than they need to into a hand that they might not win.

Solid player on tilt: A solid player who is having a bad day and steaming away his money will usually be a maniac preflop and then turn into a calling station.

Solid player: Somebody who you don't want to play against. Even if you are marginally better than the solid players at your table they won't provide you with profit against the rake.

Mega-bluffer: A player who is generally solid, but bluffs all the time for no good reason. This player loses all of his edge because he'll always throw out a river bet if it is checked to him and he is thus easy to checkraise. He understands the concept that one successful bluff is worth many that fail, but doesn't understand that nobody will ever fold the winning hand against him. When he does take down a pot with a "bluff" on the river he doesn't realize that he had the winning hand anyway.

Rolling Rock: A reformed rock who still has troubles. He's learned to play more hands preflop, but it does him litle good as he still won't play any hand unless he flops top pair, top kicker or better. He's fold his flush draw with a gutshot to one bet on the flop when he is in position.

Smoker (ns room): A smoker in a nonsmoking room misses a lot of hands and is constantly post&surrendering blinds after the puck. They tend to then play more hands than they should because they aren't playing when they are out smoking and they came to play, not to fold.

Smoker (smoking room): Tend to be tell-factories.

Tell-factory: Could be any flavour of solid as a player, but they are so concerned with giving off tells that in their attempt to not tell they do tell. They might always look away when they are on a monster (ie watching the TV intently even though hockey ended an hour ago) or stop breathing when bluffing. Mike Caro's Book of Tells can tell you all about reading them.

Pot-committer: A player who will not fold a good hand when it becomes clear that it is not the winning hand. These are people who will call with their overpair against a 4-flush board with three opponents betting in the hand and no suited ace. They flopped a great hand and are desperate to win with it because they have paid so much into the pot. These people do not realize that money in the pot is nolonger theirs and feel that they *must* hang on to stay tied to *their* money as long as possible. These are people to bet with a lot more than usual on the river and not people to ever bluff at.


That's just a summary of the common types...this isn't something I write down, so a lot of the player types are "plays just like old Greek George," etc when talking to my coplayers.

A thing to remember is that if a player had no weaknesses, he probably would be playing the 50-100 or higher, so you should be able to classify most low limit players and pigeonhole them - then go to work on breaking their weak spots.

Hope that helps.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: On table selection..., Swagman, 21. Apr 2003 03:29
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Sounds like you just got thro watching ROUNDERs. Either that are you the best poker player in the world to put 9 other people at a table on that kind of information. Sounds like you like to talk more then anything. Firstly, placing tells on what a person wear whether its a cowboy hat are a frigging bolo is a mistake. I've know people that I have seen wear sweat pants to the table that could probably beat you in their sleep. Secondly, you need to see a person play pretty long to be able to come up with so much in depth analyze. Finally, whatever gift you think you have, intuition, little voices in your head, ESP, is gonna hurt you in the long run, unless your as good as you claim to be on reading people. But it sounded to me like a gut impression you had on each of those either players. Small glimpses of another persons play can be misleading, and if you put them on a label your gonna hurt yourself in the long run, unless your the Poker god u claim.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: On table selection..., shorn, 21. Apr 2003 07:26
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Or, maybe he plays at the same club all the time and has seen a lot of these folks before. I agree that getting a first impression of someone might not always work long run, but I think the larger point of the post was to highlight the importance of table selection in your hourly win rate.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: On table selection..., stdioh, 21. Apr 2003 09:05
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Ouch. That's pretty harsh Swagman. Let me try to justify my voice here.

Firstly, I'm no poker God. I'm a winning player and I'm good at finding my edge. The best part of my game is my reading ability and my ability to taylor my play to the other players in the hand at the moment. All of the world class ring game players I know do that extremely well and I hope to be of that callibre some day.

As shorn pointed out, I *do* play at the same club about three times a week so it is easy to know the regulars. The two solid players to my right, for instance, I have played with for dozens of hours each in the past - I know that they are good. To know that a player is bad is a little easier. If 100 hands go by and a player plays in 95 of them and constantly shows down hands like 47o, then you know he is a fish - period.

As for players wearing sweatpants, of course they are good. Most of the pros in my local cardroom wear sweatsuits and tracksuits to play - this is a danger sign. Players wearing furry jackets at the table however are a different story.

Generally here are some signs of good player physically: Asian females who dress nicely, wear makeup, and generally look good. White females wearing no makeup and looking a little grubby. Men wearing comfortable clothes and looking at home.

To get to the crux of the matter, appearances aren't everything, but they aren't nothing either. Nonetheless, you don't need to watch somebody play for too long before you get to know them. And you know that somebody isn't a pro right away if you have never seen them in the cardroom before and they seem to not know what they are doing.

And as for being somebody who "just watched rounders." I like that movie. I think that Mike makes a lot of bad mistakes in the hands he plays and so does KGB. Did you notice that he makes an all-in bet on a river when the only hand that could call him is one that beats him? Now it is true that I am not the most humble poster in this forum and it is true that the number of boneheaded plays I've made in my life is gigantic, but it is also true that I've seen a fair bit and when I post here it is with the intention of educating aspiring players who can learn something from me. If you think I'm saying something that just isn't true, make a counterpoint to my argument and we'll discuss it. I'm certainly not the be-all end-all authority.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: On table selection..., Steve S, 22. Apr 2003 07:25
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Amen!

As one of the many 'dedicated newbies' (actually, probably not even that good yet) that read this forum, I delight in reading posts that encompass the whole experience of 'winning' poker. And, although extremely valuable, there are only so many "I have KQo - 2 from the button..." posts I can read in one sitting before my head is spinning.

So, having a detailed, non-hand specific, experiential story (with an intro, body and conclusion) is very refreshing.

Nice one stdioh, I look forward to the next installment...

Steve.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: On table selection..., stdioh, 22. Apr 2003 07:54
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Thanks Steve. It's great to know that there are some out there who like to hear what I have to say.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: On table selection..., Swagman, 25. Apr 2003 19:50
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
I was immediately sorry for writing the post after I sent it. Cuz I don't wanna talk down another person's play. And I made several reference, that if you were indeed good enuff to put so many people on their games, then congratulations to you. What was bugging me was that I felt like I was reading the end of a mystery novel. When the great Holmes are someone describes everyone in the parlor as to why he are she couldn't be the murderer. But mainly the gist of my post (and you did it again with your most recent post) was that making a pre-conceived opinion of another player will only hurt your game i.e. Asian women that dress well. Lets say an Asian that dresses well sits down out a table your at. And that Asian is totally different then what your notions of her is, then your game is compromised.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: On table selection..., stdioh, 28. Apr 2003 11:55
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Fair comment. Possibly I write too much into poker other than the statistics, but I do want to make my writing at least interesting for others to read.

As for generalizations about a player based on appearance, they are only the loosest of guidelines, certainly not rules. I've played with dozens of well dressed asian women who are terrible and every other shade of ability. It's just a jumping off point.

And thanks for the de-hurtful retraction. My words may not be everybody's cup of tea, but I certainly don't want to be agravating anybody with them either.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
       POKER FORUM HOME   |   POKER FORUM   |   LINK TO US   |   ARCHIVE   |   ONLINE POKER Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum  
Getting Started |  UPF Tournaments |  Poker News, Views, Rules |  Poker Strategy & Psychology |  Money and Bankroll
Poker Bonuses & Promotions |  World Series of Poker (WSOP) |  Play Online Poker |  Poker Odds & Statistics |  Tournament Poker |  Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools
Looking for a Poker Game |  Poker Bad Beats |  Not Quite Poker |  Quizzes and Polls |  Forum Suggestions & Bugs

Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network