I love it when these guys come to sit down and play in my mix games; they constantly bet/raise, reraise on the second to last draw in TD and then take three! Helloooo? I can SEE YOU drawing! Not the same like bet/shoving in NL.

Quite amusing actually.

Me like.

funny that this hasn't gotten flamed much ITT

couldn't disagree more

Probably because everyone who argues against it proves it's true.

everyone who argues for it prefer to be lazy dopes vs taking 30 seconds to scan the field for higher EV situations

it's downright irresponsible not to put some effort into seeking out the best table/seat to play at

nobody ITT is good enough to pass up on higher EV when a seat is open to a total whale within eyesight of a poker room

there's simply no debate that table selection is a key element; the argument comes into play when deciding how much time to allocate for table selection on a daily basis when all tables appear about equal in EV

You're proving my point.

1. In assuming table changing is even possible, you're admitting you're not playing very high stakes. Sure, maybe there's a "whale" at the other 1/2 table. That doesn't make you good, only not as bad as most 1/2 players. Which is pretty bad. Being the best 1/2 or 2/5 player is like being really smart for a sixth grader.

At non-Disneyland stakes, you're going to see one table, maybe with a must move, and seat changes that are contested.

And to be more helpful / less snarky, replies to various other responses:

2. Classifying people as winners and losers and good and bad admits you don't change peoples' winrates. When a good player sits down at a table, a lot of people become losers.

The best people to win money from are the people who take money from others. They have holes in their game that often never get closed because they net win. The good players take their share of the easy money, plus a good chunk of the difficult money, then squeeze a few bucks from people you didn't think could be squeezed from.

How can someone think there's 5 winners in a low- or medium-stakes game? LOL.

3. People assumed to be playing terribly are often better than assumed. The guy calling down any pair does pretty well when he's playing the bluff-happy maniac. Mediocre players (correctly) see them as two people who would individually get ripped apart by TAGs. What you miss is that together, they change the very nature of the game. Good players adjust; mediocre players keep TAGging.

Good players get their share of the really-easy money. But they'll get more than their fair share of the slightly-easy money. And basically all of the not-easy money. And when conventional wisdom dictates there's 1 fish, 3 slightly bad, and 4 winners at a table, the good player sees 3 really-easy, 3 slightly-easy, and 2 not-easy donators.

4. In today's poker economy, longevity is a serious concern for good players. Big games aren't running as often and antagonizing rare players is frowned on.

---

Don't get me wrong. I do not think I am a good player. But I've interacted enough with good players (at least in LHE) to see how they're a cut above in just about everything they do, including behavior.

Your logic in some spots is so terrible.

-If there's only 1 game at your desired level, then obviously you aren't going to spend any time looking for a different game, unless you are willing to move up/down.

-Even if there's only 2 games running, it's still probably worth taking a minute to see if there's a gaping disparity in the players at the other table.

-The quoted comment above really makes you come off like a d-bag. There are plenty of good players making a living at 2/5 (and below). The issue at hand is whether or not to take time to table select. At MOST casinos across the US, there aren't a ton of games running above 2/5, so games 2/5 and below are pretty much what we are talking about here, and to say that it's not worth scoping out the other tables, as other people have mentioned, is ridiculous, egotistical, and is a good way to hurt your win rate.

OK, let's end the epeening.

I think it goes without saying that if you see a great table, you should try to get to it. However, there's rarely more than one player spewing money at a LLSNL table. The odds are very high that when there is a seat opening, you're going to take the spewer's seat. You'll be left with a bunch of nits who are disappointed they didn't get aces to take his stack. And you've moved to what is now the worst table in the room.

A great table is where most of the people are drinking and the only whining is because the cocktail waitress isn't coming back often enough. I don't see those type of tables often. Therefore, I divide tables in to A, B and C. Most tables are a B, decent and not really worthwhile to change from unless it is abundantly clear a table is having way to much fun. It doesn't take long to figure it out where the A table is. You can hear them from your seat. It is the C table, where there a bunch of tough players. Then it doesn't matter, you want to move to wherever you can.

103 sold, 51 watchers.

Just so you know...


(not my listing, but this man is a genius for selling a watch band with a little bracket that says poker champion)

No, the issue is whether good players table select. It branched off of the suggestion that table selectors are good.

I completely agree that at most places in the US, only 2/5- is spread, and I further agree that an awful lot of players move around an awful lot. That proves my argument, not disproves it.

The thread is about how you determine good players, not how to differentiate the top half from the bottom half in Podunk Casino. I mean if there are really 3-5 "good" players at every table in every room in the US, there's really no trick in locating them - watch 3 hands and anyone who doesn't play all 3 is "good." You're not determining who's good, you're determining who doesn't suck.

if I have a choice between a few games, I generally go to the game with the most money on the table. Unless of course I see a known aggressive spewtard, but there still needs to be money on the game.

if people are stuck on only "playing against the fish" than guess what (you are also a fish). imo the better players are much easier to read and to beat.

Visual signs of a winning player:

Someone who is not screwing around with their phone.

This sounds like "move up to where they respect your raises" logic.

I was thinking the same thing. The better they are, the fewer mistakes they make, and the fewer mistakes they make, the less profit there is to gain by playing them.

Weak players are hard to read in the sense that their ranges tend to be so broad or weird that it's difficult to put them on a specific hand. But they make so many mistakes that it hardly matters. You just have to make as few mistakes as possible, and they'll be practically burying you in money.

Playing against a good opponent or two sometimes is good for improving your game, but playing against weak opponents is your bread and butter.

"It's not about pride or ego. It's only about money."

Agreed. Winning players are easy to get to fold..... Until they realize that you realize you're capable of folding so they realize you're capable of bluffing and they call you down with top pair on a K927Q board when you check raise shove 300bb's deep with the naked A and he realizes your range is polarized to the nuts or complete air and you get stacked.

I think what you mean is, "tighter" players are easier to read. Cause there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that the better players are going to be easier to read and beat. The better the player, the more curveballs he's gonna throw, he's going to mix things up, and, you're not gonna to be able to read him half as easy as you would, say, the tighter, the semi more readable opponent. That's what makes them better!

As far as bad players go, even though they may not be as straightforward as the tight opponent...if you take notice, their bad habits/tendencies reveal themselves in a fairly short amount of time.

In order, you should extract the most from the bad, then the tight, and lastly, the real good player.

This is also false.

When has screwing around with a phone ever helped anybody's game or prevented a mistake?

People freak out about fastrolling at showdown because "OMG information!" but burying yourself in your phone loses far more information for a much longer period of time.

The question was:

What are visual signs of a winning player?

Pfap: Someone who is not screwing around with their phone, is NOT a sign that they're a winning player. You can sit there like a stealth god but if you suck at poker, guess what?...you're still gonna suck.

Does it help to be on the phone? No. But just because someone surfs on the net or texts while they're at the table doesn't mean they're not winning players! At the top of my head, ironically enough, the biggest winners in the room where I play are all "cellphone abusers."

I get what you're getting at, I just didn't agree with the blanket statement that was made previously.

More importantly, you lose your non-acting baseline.

In a hand, you look at your opponent to see what tells he gives. But it's confounded by the fact he knows he's on stage. You have to decide whether he's a good or bad actor IN ADDITION to whether he's a good or bad player.

Outside of a hand, you get to see people off-stage. The guy who's hand is shaking? It's always shaking. The talkative guy who suddenly goes quiet? He does it whenever he's in a hand, even if he's just taking it down preflop. The guy who lost a pot and is suddenly angry? He might be pissed because the waitress just spilled Sriracha on his nice shirt, and he's not on tilt at all.

A winning player does not wear sunglasses

There are a variety of sets here, and they overlap. I don't think this thread is meant to be a list of exclusive traits or direct relationships.

Speaking of which, far fewer players in high stakes move the button as do in low stakes. So I stand by that one.

.......

is this real life?

"**** 1/2, I'm gonna play 10/20. The players are better so they are easier to read and easier to beat."

I love when people think this.