I was having this argument with someone about table selection. Seeing what the rest of you guys think.

Suppose that when you're table selecting, you have the choice between these two tables:

Table A: You are the best player at this table, but there are no huge fish at the table either. This table consists mostly of above average recreational players who understand basic poker theory and make some effort to hand read. And sometimes their bluff lines actually make sense. But you're good enough that you can stay one step ahead of them more often than not.

Table B: There are two whales at the table who are playing 50% or more of their hands, constantly limp-calling (of course, OOP), and just want to see a flop and play their hands. There are a few more decent recreational players and a couple players of your level. The problem is, there are also 3 elite pros who are better and more experienced than you are.

For the most part I would say A, but if you can get B with 1-0 of the pros to your left you could do fine. If 2-3 pros are to your left they will just iso fish and you will get pooped on all night.

table A - being the best player = do whatever the **** you want

Does your style fit better with stealing lots of small pots or waiting out the whales and playing two huge pots (when u have them crushed) a night with them?

Too easy. Table 1.


Table 2 has too many players that can and will take the play away from you with position and very little you can (or want) to do about it. Its a ridiculous fight in a live game. 4 people of your caliber will dilute the earn horribly. The fish would have to be so far off the chart that this would rarely happen in real life.

Most players I speak with dont realize that at live poker you really need to be the best player at the table or at least equaled only by one other to make much money at 1-2 or 2-5 NLH. (and i mean top earners. I dont include $10 an hour etc to be really much) Some fairly poor players are needed as well since the slowness of the game etc.

When the games get anywhere even remotely close to where there are only 1 or 2 soft spots at the table (and the rest are somewhere in your neighborhood of skill), then the game wont be playable. (It would be like playing online but one table only)

really depends a lot on how bad the fish are postflop and how much money they are willing to lose in the game

also positions and stuff

Unless the positions are terrible, table B and its probably not all that close.

My text message convo went something like this

Buddy: "Seat 7 at my table just opened up. Seat 2 and 8 are practically chip dumping." It's soooo rare to have players like them in 5/10
Me: "Aww, but I'm comfy here. There are zero pros at my table"
Buddy: "Yeah, but you don't have any real fish either. Most of your profits in poker come from the fish, right?"
Me: "Yeah, but you and seat 5 and 6 are all some of the most respected players here"
Buddy: "You'll have position on 5 and 6. And you know I don't get fancy against other good players when the fish are in every hand, so don't worry. Besides, the fish are in every hand, so most of the hands you'll be playing will be against them."

With that being said, I at least looked at the game. And decided I was more comfortable with my original table

This. It's all about position. Seat 7 seems pretty bad actually and depending just how bad they are, it might not be the better table.

You want the position on the fish. Everything else is somewhat irrelevant. If you have it, the pros can't really do jack ****.

Table one is a low variance, money printing operation. If the whales are the type to play for a long time regardless of $ won or lost then table 2 would be better, even without great position. I like table one because potential huge scores aren't the most important thing to me.

I'd rather have pos on the better players.

Playing against whales is easy and profitable IP and OOP, but IP on the competent opponents I can shut them out of pots & attack their moves.

Easily table 2 imo assuming you have good position on the fish. There will just be a better expectation when you have two players who are likely legit -50-100bb/100 players longterm. Table one consists sounds like it consists of people who are likely somewhere +-1-10bb/100 players. You will likely have more consistent winning sessions @ this table, but the other clearly yields the greatest profit.

From what I saw, seat 8 was so bad that he would almost always get his stack in at any time you net it, and he kept rebuying.

Seat 2 was your typical wanna see a flop and fit or fold after that.

If i could have had position on 8, the game might have neen worth it gor him alone. But seat 7 was the one that was open for a reason.

no question table b then, even OOP

snap B, not even close. Im suprised any1 thinks of A