United Poker Forum

Server Time: 3/13/2010 7:01:20 PM PACIFIC  
Let's discusss TABLE SELECTION, SendMoney, 14. Jun 2003 12:10
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
This is a great forum, and I've gained a lot of great advice here over the last few months. While I've noticed plenty of discussion pertaining to specific hands, betting situations, starting hand requirements, bad beats, tourney strategy and the like I don't see too much mention of the all important subject of table selection. I would go so far as to say that selecting the right table to fit your game is about 30%-40% of being a successful profitable poker player over the long term.

I play mostly live action $3/$6 and $4/$8 Hold Em. At these limits I need to find a table that will get me over the rake, so I'm looking for (a) a full table with 9-10 players (b) 5-8 players seeing most flops (c) plenty of loose callers (d) frequent pre-flop raising, re-raising, even capping. I'm always looking for a table with a "let's make a pot" attitude, with guys raising UTG with K10s or any ace.

Some people compare these tables to playing roulette but I have a different strategy when I sit at them. Basically I only enter a pot with a starting hand I realize will probably be raised, 3 bet, or capped, and when I do flop monsters I never, ever slowplay. Here's why - say I hold AKo and the betting is capped before the flop, the flop comes A A K with two hearts, if I bet I may well get raised by A8o, called by 39s (hearts), called by Q10o (gutshot), and maybe even a hand like K9o will hang around weakly hoping against hope that no one really has an ace.

At tables like this board recognition, pot odds, and intuition is important. Occasionally I end up laying down the best hand on the turn, but many more times the laydown is correct. Here's what I'm definitely NOT looking for at low limit Hold Em tables:

1. Everyone folding to the big blind.
2. The small blind looking at the big blind asking "Chop chop?"
3. Shorthanded tables or semi-broken tables (6 players or less).
4. Everyone folding to an UTG raise.
5. No loose callers.
6. No noticably bad players.
7. No pre-flop re-raises or caps.
8. Lots of "Bet and Take It" flop action.

At the limits I play these tight tables imply two things (1) The players are not fish (2) The house is the only player making any money. If I had to pick between a tight table and a table that was capped before the flop 60%-75% of the times I'll take the wild ride any day, and I'll just have to deal with the suckouts. Every once and a while I'll put a gutshot on them too, since often pots are so big they're paying more than 11 to 1 to chase a Broadway.

So what is your favorite type of table?
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Let's discusss TABLE SELECTION, 4 POKER, 14. Jun 2003 12:49
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
There was an extremely long and well thought out post written by stdioh some time ago, maybe you missed it but there is always room for discussing this subject because it is one that is imperative to your game if you plan on being successful.

In my opinion, disciplining yourself is key because the other key elements required to being successful are just other forms of your discipline skills. And they are your bankroll and your table selection abilities. If you don't possess discipline than you will be more apt to play in games that will put your bankroll in jeopardy (money management) and you may sit in games that aren't right for you because you simply just don't have the discipline to wait and look for a game that will be the beter game for you.

All these factors must be applied; they go hand in hand.

Now, playing in a game in which the limits are over your head(bankroll) is the easiest way to go broke.
But if you chose a game based on the limit that you can afford to play at, then you must be able to know by your own past experiences as to what type of game best suits your style of play.

For me, I chose to sit in games where I can take the most control over my opponents. But because I play all forms of poker games, each one is different from the next when it comes to the texture of the game and pre-flop play/strategies opposed to flop play and strategies.

For example, if I'm playing in an Omaha hi-low game, because there are players who make huge mistakes in this game, preflop and on the flop, I prefer to play against as many loose/bad players as possible. The game is the type of game where you must show the "nuts" and because I am willing to wait for a premium hand, and because I have alot of experience in Omaha, when I do enter the pot, they'll all be calling and chasing me down anyway; and I welcome that because most of the time these loose and/or inexperienced players will pay me off when I do have the nuts because they simply just aren't aware how bad their hands are and how many incorrect calls they actually are making, thus leaving me with a +EV. So the way I see it, "the more the merrier"!

Now, when I chose to play hold-em, because this game is not one that is based on, "you must show the nuts", I prefer to play in games that are a little bit more passive and/or tight so I will be able to have better control over them. I like to be the aggressor and because I chose to play solid cards, that allows me to be aggressive without having to concern myself too much about nine other players who will throw their money into the pot. I like to bluff more in hold-em as well, bet top pair for value etc. and by playing in a game that's a little bit snugger and or predictable I can do just that.

I have no problems adjusting to a loose game of hold-em, it's just that I prefer to play in the more predictable games. That has worked for me anyway

If you're told that the looser the game, the better, but you're not beating it, than that type of game may very well not be the best one for you.

You have to pick a game where you'll be getting the bigger advantage and you should always, I mean ALWAYS chose a game that you are able to beat- and that means that you must be better than your opponents and if the game you're sitting in is filled with better and/or more experienced types, than you better have enough common sense (discipline) to get up and find a game that you can beat.

You want to be the favorite at all times. You will not always win(that's impossible), but you will sure as hell have given yourself the best odds in doing so.






4 POKER
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Let's discusss TABLE SELECTION, stdioh, 16. Jun 2003 10:23
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Here is the previous post I made on table selection, for anybody who wants to give it a look:

> "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 where I wouldn't
> normally sit 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
> 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 one
> 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 bet 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 best table at which I've yet ever played. I may
> have been 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 beyond 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: Let's discusss TABLE SELECTION, Mark, 14. Jun 2003 19:49
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
There are a few factors that must go into table selection to make it worthwhile even bothering to look at all the available games.

1. you must be able to correctly categorize others play
2. you must be able to choose your table

and most important

3. you must know what kind of table you prefer to play at.

Table selection really all depends on what style of game you like to play. If you don't know what you are looking for, why bother looking?

mark

P.S.

Typical $3-6, $4-8, and $5-10 games have a 10% rake. A 10% rake is very diffucult to overcome over long term.

Example, $5-10 hold'em, 10 players all buy-in for $150, max rake $5,

A loose table will get close to 30 hands raked per hour - thats $150/hour the goes missing from the table!!!!

After 10 hours, all of the original buy-ins get "dropped" by the rake. this is VERY diffucult to over come.




        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Let's discusss TABLE SELECTION, Andrew Wells, 14. Jun 2003 21:28
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
This would be valid if everyone stayed at that table for the 10 hours. As long as there is a list, and someone else to fill an empty seat then you get fresh money into the game. These games are beatable simply because so many players just want to win pots. The right approach is only to make better decisions than everyone else. The first right decision is to only play hands where you have a big enough advantage to overcome such a 10% rake. Since you are not concerned with how many pots you win (just the ones you play), you don't mind sometimes sitting for several hours folding hands that others would bet. There are very few hands which by themselves are good enough to overcome 10%. The rest of the time you are playing situations and position. It is common for me if I'm playing in a 10% $5 max rake game to win maybe two or three showdowns in a six hour session and still walk away with more than I sat down with. The only way this can be done consistently is by having the patience to keep folding when you don't have a big edge. These low limit games are not beaten by outplaying everyone, they are beaten by not overplaying yourself. For every yahoo that gets away with a quick score, there are five that leave it in the hole in the table. Don't be a contributor to the rake by trying to win pots, just make solid decisions instead.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Let's discusss TABLE SELECTION, JLenart, 16. Jun 2003 10:13
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
So much is made of table selection and I know it's very important. However, where I play, often the choice is to play or not to play since you are not give a choice of tables. Here's the situation. The cardroom has about 30 tables but most times there are only 2 tables of 5/10 hold 'em (the lowest stakes offered at this room and the highest I am comfortable playing) Sometimes they will have a must-move table going as well. I suppose I could study up to play O8 or stud at a level I am comfortable with in the card room and have a table selcetion choice based on that criteria.

What would you reccomend I do based solely on my 5/10 hold 'em game selection. Check the tables out and see what the games look like before I decide to put my name on the list? If I decide not to play then I made the trip (a 30 minute drive) only to turn around and go home, not my ideal way to play.

Anyway just some thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Let's discusss TABLE SELECTION, 4 POKER, 16. Jun 2003 10:54
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Hey J,
What I would do is this, if I went to the cardroom and at least one of the games looked like it would be a good game for me, than I would wait to get in that game.

If I went to the casino and all the games looked tough, than I probably would go home (30 minutes or not), and I would find a game to play in on-line. (you'll almost always find a good game there)! I know that it's frustrating to drive a decent amount of miles only to find that the games really weren't good to begin with but the way I see it is... even though turning around and going home is not "ideal" in your plans...playing in a game that is not in your favor isn't ideal either...and that one would cost you money, too! I just think that I would play on-line if that was the case, but more times than not, there is a game that would be good for you. (but then again, maybe I'm just fortunate to have such a wide variety of tables to chose from 'cause where I live, there's around 70 tables in the room and right now I'm at the Commerce in L.A. where there's over 165 poker tables)!

I look at it like this, If you gain enough experience in poker, and you can show consistent wins, and that definitely includes playing on-line, than when you do go to your casino, you'll be one of the better, more solid players, and you won't have to concern yourself too much as to where to play at...because when you're the favorite, most of the games will be a "good game" for you!
But the game of poker takes years of experience and patience is definitely important... so keep that in mind.

Now I really don't know how beatable or unbeatable those games are that you play in, but if you know yourself that a certain game is a tough game, one that is filled with pretty good players and you don't think that you're on of the favorites, than you really should consider not playing.
But you'll find your nitch, and eventually you'll be in tune as to what type of game is best for you. I know for myself that I don't particularily care for really wild games; but that's just me. Everyone has their own style and when you chose a game that best suits you whether it be a tight game, loose game, whatever, than that is when you'll have far better results in poker.



4 POKER
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Let's discusss TABLE SELECTION, TKarrde, 16. Jun 2003 13:19
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
30 Tables?? Man, my local casino boats have 8 and 12. Selection isn't an option. Play or don't play.... "there is no try". But then again I'm guessing you have twice (if not more) the players. Problem with casino boats is that square footage is really at a premium. To maximize their profits they need to throw in as many one-arm-bandits in as possible.

Dave, what if it is a 90 minute drive? :)

I think I have learned Omaha 8b enough to sit but they rarely spread that. Think I'm going to jump on the play chip tables and try and figure out 7-Stud.

TKarrde

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Let's discusss TABLE SELECTION, 4 POKER, 16. Jun 2003 13:53
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
TK,
You just opposed a "Q" to Dave(?) about the 90 minute drive but I'm not sure if you were asking me or somebody else(LOL). So I won't respond yet unless you tell me too!


PS. what did you mean by that last sentence...the word you're using......is that a quote or a comment? not sure.

4 POKER (dave).
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Let's discusss TABLE SELECTION, TKarrde, 17. Jun 2003 06:05
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Question was to you. Sorry. Because you berated me for, dare I say it... gambling with my poker money. :( LOL

Yes. It is a quote from The Princess Bride. I think I'm gonna invite you and Moz and stdioh and all the other quote experts over to my house. We will set up 4 televisions. And play great classic movies on all of them at the same time while we play a 12 hour session of 50¢ ante dueces-wild-five-card-draw-low-spade-in-the-hole-gets-half-the-pot-no-check-raising-everyone-calls-to-the-river game of poker. By the end of the day you should be educated or insane.... or both.

TKarrde

"You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. And only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a Sicilian (Mozman) when death is on the line!"
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Let's discusss TABLE SELECTION, Big_Slick, 16. Jun 2003 14:50
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
So much is made of table selection and I know it's very important. However, where I play, often the choice is to play or not to play since you are not give a choice of tables

I've opted to play online for the very reason. I have no selection at my local casino. I'm lucky if they have 2 games going.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Let's discusss TABLE SELECTION, 4 POKER, 16. Jun 2003 15:09
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
I agree with that, Slick. If you're not given a big enough variety and the choices are very limited, than on-line poker may very well be your best choice. The games are always good there!


4P-
        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 | Find Vancouver Businesses