Advice on table selection

I've got some news letter with interesting advice about table selection:

When you log into a site and decide the stake that you're going to play, take a look at the average pot size of all the tables you can for that stake. Try and approximate what the AVERAGE pot size is for all the tables. For example, if there are 6 table at the stake you want to play and the average pot size is $7,6,4,9,9,5 - then you can approximate that the average pot size is ~$6.5. You want to find the table that is somewhat over that average size, and not the largest. In this example the best table to pick would be the $7 table. You want to find a table that has some action and may not have hit it's peak yet. Of course any table could just begin to get action, but finding a table that has some action, but not the highest, gives you a chance of either finding a pretty good table even if the pot sizes don't get bigger, and possibly finding one that will increase.

seems pretty trivial

i use dataming +buddy list +sixth sense

i dont trust the effictiveness of avg table flop seen percentage or average pot size used by the sites.....

The idea I found so interesting is that one should seek above average pots but not max in order to be there when anticipated peak comes. Or is it just nonsense ...

Some of the best tables I've played have had very low avg pot sizes.

DUCY?

low pot sizes might mean you can run all over the table which can be pretty profitable.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Some of the best tables I've played have had very low avg pot sizes.

DUCY?

Sure folding equity and bullying nits is fine.
I was more thinking about common situation: table is full of average (non-donk) players and there is a mega-donk playing like crazy, tilting people around, hitting cards, making them eager to get even and thus turning them, temporarily into donks themselves. Jumping in this one with cold head is very EV+

Silly nits. You lose.

What happens to the avg pot size before and after the table donator stacks off?

What sorts of tables are 12 tabling nits going to tend to sit down at if there is an open seat? How about an action junkie?

The advice in OP is completely retarded.

avg pot size can also mean the table is very aggressive, and low pot size can mean the table is very passive. And it's only calculated off around 20 hands so it doesn't usually mean much.

I look for people limping and calling bets/raises oop too much, or going all in too much.

Originally Posted by benny999

And it's only calculated off around 20 hands so it doesn't usually mean much.

ah yes, i never really thought about that

simple advice is that if you don't like the table, move - I personally like high flop % and higher pots, but sometimes those are high because of what Fnord mentioned - some guy just donked off his stack and now he's gone...The great thing about online is that there are plenty of choices...

I think that it is more important to choose a seat with the big stacks to your right and the shorties to your left. It is much easier preflop to play when the shorties go AI.

Originally Posted by Jager

I think that it is more important to choose a seat with the big stacks to your right and the shorties to your left. It is much easier preflop to play when the shorties go AI.

this is something i need to pay more attention to, and i imagine many others need to as well.

fnord, you still sitting with a bunch of half stacks.?I never realised actually how much of my profit was being fed to me by these guys who just sit with 40bucks at 200nl and go busto!

So, buying in full in low avg. table and then running all over poor little shortie nits is better strategy?

i can't wait til the shorties are actually worth some $$$

I've seen 2 types of short stacks.
1. The guy who buys in to eliminate Implied Odds.
2. The guy who thinks $1/$2 blinds look good.

They play very different preflop. Player 1 raises most if not all of his hands, player 2 tries to limp alot to see cheap flops.

Player 1 usually plays big A's and mid PP. Player 2 can play any Ax or Kx or PP or T6o.

My rules for calling when they reraise preflop AI.
1.Call big any PP. (obvious)
2. If they are so short that their reraise is less than or about equal to what you would cbet the flop with anyway, then call. i.e. you raise $8 if they just call it would be about a $20 pot, therefore I would call up to about a $25 reraise. This cost you an additional $17, about what you would have bet the flop with.

Postflop
Player 1 will usually push himself AI w/ TP or better or AK/AQ on junk flops.
Player 2 will bluff at any flop you show weakness on, so if you hit TP+, check the flop even if you are opp and they will fire their stack at you.

I will usually push player 1 with TPTK or better, if they want to take away my implied odds the I will punish them with Tp/2 pair.

Nice post Jager, some very useful info.

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

fnord, you still sitting with a bunch of half stacks.?I never realised actually how much of my profit was being fed to me by these guys who just sit with 40bucks at 200nl and go busto!

I seriously wonder how many good games I've fucked up my not keeping my mouth shut.

Stallar Wind ran some numbers a long time ago and found that most of the money came from super-donators who played so badly that they couldn't beat 5 "sock-puppets."

My theory of SS poker is put yourself in a position to make the most from the super-donators. Fight over them as you would a blind. Heck, they're worth more than the blinds. Shut out the other guys at the table from gambling with them. Everything else is gravy or damage control.

Originally Posted by Sheetah

So, buying in full in low avg. table and then running all over poor little shortie nits is better strategy?

Nits rarely buy-in short.

People who are really gambling tend to buy-in short.

i buy in medium/short because i dont like making mistakes.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

i buy in medium/short because i dont like making mistakes.

Isn't this a mistake?

Originally Posted by Jager

Originally Posted by wufwugy

i buy in medium/short because i dont like making mistakes.

Isn't this a mistake?

No.

For what it's worth, I buy-in deep because I'll inevitably get deep anyway, and it challenges me to play better with more money behind.

i buy in for 40bb because it gives me a little bit of room with implied odds but is still short enough to be covered by most, and i leave the table and rebuy or find another if and when i reach 80bb.

i do this because even though deep stack is where it's at when playing against other bad deep stacks, 1) i can focus my play on the two easiest streets (on which even an excellent player can still improve), 2) bad deep stacks play looser against short stacks, typically, and 3) i believe Greenstein mentions that a key to downswings in NL is playing short stack. im not sure if this is due to any other reason than the fact that losing 40bb in one hand is far less psychologically crippling than losing 160bb in one hand. and tilting is bad, very bad. especially in NL.

having come out of a lengthy shorthanded limit 700bb downswing at the juiciest tables on the internet for the stake, i really care about regulating downswings the best i possibly can.

i play deep against nits and short/normal (100bbs) against genuine GAMBooL'ers.

I only to stay sat deep with poor players if they get deep (which isnt so often)

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

i play deep against nits and short/normal (100bbs) against genuine GAMBooL'ers.

I only to stay sat deep with poor players if they get deep (which isnt so often)

What does it matter if you have 200BB's and all the poor players are still < 100BB's? Why would you rather have 100BB's?

Originally Posted by wufwugy

i believe Greenstein mentions that a key to downswings in NL is playing short stack.

I'd like to know exactly what he means by this because playing short increases variance since others are more willing to gamble with you, and you get your stack pot-committed more often.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by wufwugy

i believe Greenstein mentions that a key to downswings in NL is playing short stack.

I'd like to know exactly what he means by this because playing short increases variance since others are more willing to gamble with you, and you get your stack pot-committed more often.

i believe he mentioned it on The Circuit.

and i think it has to do with steaming. if i make a close but ultimately poor push or call or get sucked out on, losing 40bb is much easier to psychologically recuperate from than losing 160bb.

could be more to it than that, but i dont know.