I played a couple online sessions recently and sort of got to thinking about this. Since I began playing limit, the general way that I would determine if a table was “good” or “bad” began with evaluating it’s VPIP. A high VPIP indicates preflop looseness which often means players are putting in plenty of money with way too wide of a range. As a result, this statistic became the most common standard by which I would judge a table as to how good or bad of a game it was.

As we all know, over the past couple of years in general, but specifically since the UIGEA legislation was passed, the online games have become much tougher. Gone are the days of sitting in the 15/30 Party game with several loose fish and a VPIP of 40%. A big reason for this is that tight players lose their money more slowly than the loose ones and as a result they don’t die out as quickly. This has had the effect of causing your average online game to be much tighter than it was before. This is especially pronounced in the full ring games, where VPIP’s that were once in the 30% ranges have shrunk to the lower 20% or even the teens in some really bad cases. This has also shrunk the average pot sizes.

There are actually a few advantages to this as well, but unless you have an edge over the competition, they range from inapplicable to only slightly beneficial(still outweighed, of course, by the loss of a lot of the fish due to the legislation, though). If you factor all of these together and make sure you have a strategy that summarily integrates these benefits, you stand to gain more in these areas(while many of your opponents’ that may not be aware of these adjustments help put more money in your pockets).

Following are some of the benefits/necessary adjustments to exploit these “tighter” games:

*The pots are more shorthanded. This has increased the value of made hands and UI Ace high.

*If you incorporate semibluffing into your arsenal you can make a profitable draw even more profitable by giving it an even better chance to win unimproved.

*You have players that are trying to be “aware” at times and as a result it can make some metagame considerations more important. If you can throw in a play that makes your table image appear one way it may allow you to exploit your opponents’ strategic adjustments and force them into making costly mistakes.

*You are presented with more bluffing opportunities that will show profit.

*The smaller pots magnify the postflop mistakes that are made by the weaker players. Since a good portion of the money we make in poker comes from our opponents’ poor decisions, this means more profit for our better decisions.

*You are sucked out on less which can mean several things. Sure, you win more pots(but we all know the old mantra about winning money not pots) but this might even help from the perspective of how tilt affects your game. The more it can affect it, the bigger a benefit this can be.

*At times you have an increased chance of inducing a better hand to fold.

These are a few examples off the top of my head. It’s important to think about the games in a different way because they require a different strategy. Sure, a 45/2/.3 fish sitting on your right can’t be beat, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t money to be made in the games today. Many players that have learned to incorporate preflop standards into their strategy don’t understand a lot of the intricacies of HU play. Nor do they understand optimal play and incorporating these new types of exploitations into actual postflop application.

If you begin to realize that there is a good way to adjust to these new players, you can turn them into your “fish” by exploiting their(different) mistakes. Feel free to include other benefits that you might be able to think of(because there are many more), as well as get some discussion going on beating these tighter games. Also of importance is understanding where you lose money in these games as opposed to the looser games(decreased implied odds, increased effect of rake, etc.), because that is where your necessary strategic adjustments come into play, so let's talk about that as well. There is a certain skill set that must be utilized and given that set there are specific parts that need special emphasis(the importance of thin valuebets, image, balance, and so on); that might also harbor discussion.

Excellent post, James.

What about blind stealing.? It seems to me like you should do it more, especially if the blinds are the "new...fish" you describe.

yep. an aggressive, attacking steal-raising strategy is one of the more obvious examples of what i was referring to.

remember though, alot of these guys are "trying" to play well. this means that you should steal a little less than you actually can NOW, to avoid their correctly adjusting to your range in the near future so you can get more LATER. it's possibly one of those counterintuitive things, but pick some strategic spots to *not steal*. these folds(on the button, CO, etc.) will be noticed by these guys and add value(through fold equity) to your range for the many times when you do steal.

good read

One effect of smaller pots is that it becomes more correct to slowplay in certain spots.

Also, some players who are used to auto-jamming certain types of hands such as some draws are probably going to make some mistakes of over-aggression because their opponents' ranges are tighter.

More shorthanded pots increases the value of hands as weak as ace-high because they introduce more bluffing possibilities for your opponents and thus more bluff-catching opportunities for yourself. You don't check top pair in a five-way pot in order to induce a bluff. You might do it in a heads-up pot.

I feel that almost any game is profitable if there is at least one bad player, even if there are other good players, and even if I have a relatively bad seat.

I say the thing about c-betting the flop. You should still bet the flop most of the times that you raise preflop and it's checked to you, but you should pick some strategic spots to not try to take down the pot right then and there to add value through fold equity for the times when you do try to take the pot after whiffing. In terms of balance, your checked flop hands should include both strong and weak hands so that your checks can't be exploited.

this is a good point. it will lend more credence to your continuation bets when you do make them. it will also make your opponents relatively uncomfortable when playing in a hand with you postflop since most players fail to make these types of decisions for the sake of balance. this in turn might lean them in the direction of folding some of the marginal hands they might have before called with in an effort to "keep you honest".

this is an example of inducing one of the mistakes i was referring to earlier. anytime you get an opponent to fold a hand he should have called with(relative to your range), you gain quite a bit both immediately and in the grand scheme of things.

definitely. for example, the nitty button raises and you call in the bb with Q7s. or even reverse the situation. if the flop is Q64 and your opponent is prone to folding too often this might be a good candidate for a slowplay. this is even true 3handed. if he will bet more hands than he will call with, given the pot is only 4sb checking might gain you more in longrun.

the range is tighter so the draw doesn't have the equity it might against a looser player. in addition, since the likelihood this player holds a good hand is increased we might do better to not jam the draw because a)our implied odds are higher relative to the increased times he holds a big hand and b)we don't necessarily gain fold equity like we might against a wider range since it's more often we are against a big hand. this might seem a contradiction because we are against a tight player and so he seems like he will fold more. this is true when the first or second bet goes in. but as a 3rd or 4th bet goes in the odds that our opponent has a hand he isn't going to fold increases.

sure. this is relative to the strength of your top pair hand. more specifically, how big your pair is; IOW the lower the pair the more value you might gain from inducing bluffs. the bigger your top pair the more of your opponents range you beat and as such you might decide betting for value might be the more profitable play.

fwiw, i think anytime i have one(with good relative position) or more opponents that make repeated mistakes the game is profitable(if you can diagnose them and determine how to exploit them).

I've developed a pretty strong resistance to tilt induced from suckouts. I don't really care about suckouts that much any more, almost not at all. Maybe if I get like 10 in a row or something and I'm stuck like 50 bets, but until I'm down about 50 bets I don't care, and if I start to care, it's pretty easy to walk away.

The thing that tends to tilt me these days is being outplayed, or being bluffed, or not seeing my opponent's cards... As pots become more shorthanded, and tougher to play correctly, I'm going to be outplayed more often and go on monkey tilt more often. I don't know, I really hate tough short handed games (or tough full ring games with mostly short handed pots). They're very frustrating.

--Dave.

I read your post. It's a good read. It's also completely useless.

I'm not allowed to be mean, since I'm nice now, but I'll explain what I mean.

Don't try to make the TAG's and turn them into fish, instead, leave that game, and find a game with real fish, and let them be fish.


Tag's are tags because they don't make many mistakes. Now, there are different kinds of tags. Lagtags, nittags, tagfish, etc. There are also different stages of fishes.

You have full blown fish, fish, mid fish, then tagfish, then nittag, then tag, then lag tag.


I suggest you just don't play at tables that only have tags, and lagtags, and nit-tags, instead, just leave.


If you were forced to play only tables vs. good players, then your post would be A+.

As it stands, I can just sit on the left of 2 players with the stats of 74/3/1.0 and let the money tree start growing.

wow. really? that's really insightful stuff. thanks for contributing. this is something i would have never thought of.

i guess you've been playing alot of the daytime fullring games online? 'cause i don't remember the last time i saw a 74/3/1.0. if you're too stupid or narrow-minded to understand what this post is directed at and intended to shed light on just go away.

in fact, in a couple spots i mentioned that you can't beat the profitability of a game with true fish. if you have such games at your disposal it's a no-brainer in terms of which game to select. my point is that only defining a "good" game only as one that is loose is not accurate. mistakes are mistakes. if we know how to exploit them we make money from these mistakes, regardless of what they are and who makes them. even "TAGs"(a term which is loosely thrown around) make mistakes that they aren't aware of, be it folding too much or not adjusting to when you open up your range in certain situations or whatever.

before you come in spouting off with the ridiculous audacity to judge a post as being completely useless, why don't you stop your trolling long enough to realize that you are a hypocrite because it is actually your post that is indeed completely useless.

thanks for the feedback, though.

james, I have 5000 posts, I"m not a troll, I'm a professional.

I'm simply stating, if you are wondering how to squeeze pennies out of good players, the game isn't good enough to play at.

It's that simple. There is a really good thread in the SSSH about table selection.

I think that table selection is the one thing that makes me a better player than most 2+2ers, because while you are trying to make tags make small mistakes, and push small edges, I sit by fish who make many mistakes and I push large edges.

Here is the link to the great table selection thread.

And, ironically enough, I didn't call anyone ******ed, or didn't tell anyone they sucked, and I stilled get hated on. I'm being nice, I am telling you that instead of worrying about how to beat good players, it's easier to beat bad players.

Also, you can just read Stox's book, because all you have done is give a cliff notes version.

If you were my student, I would have failed you for not quoting your source.


Link to "table selection" thread.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ad.php?t=75954


ps, I was re reading your response. You said something about, "if there aren't fish at the table, here's how you beat the TAGs"

My whole point is, if there are not fish at the table, you should leave. It's that simple.

first, lol at thinking that 5000 posts means anything. there are trolls running around with 9k posts and it doesn't mean they contribute anything to these forums or the posters in them. i'm not saying that's the case with you, but if someone comes in and posts something that does nothing to further the conversation, how should that be construed? anyway, i digress.

i think you are missing the intended message i was sending. it's really simple. let me give you the cliff notes: a good game doesn't have to be loose. you can attack weak/tight players and exploit their mistakes for reasonable profit.

maybe it's my fault for not spelling it out as such. i never intended to shed any light on playing TAGs. i'm talking about playing against weak/tighties(tight passives). i thought that was pretty clear. whatever.

and if i was stealing from stox's ideas, please be more specific. i've read the book and though it's been awhile i'm pretty sure he was talking about games far different than the ones to which i am referring. there are many tight passive players in the online small stakes fullring games of today. i'm trying to shed some light on the fact that we should be attacking their weaknesses in tight games at a full table, not instructing how to play in shorthanded high stakes limit games.

i respect you and respect any constructive criticism you may have. i think what may have happend here was a misunderstanding over what i was endorsing, and there's a reasonable chance that it's my fault for not adequately communicating my ideas in the OP. if you still disagree with this and want to rant about my stealing copyrighted material, have at it and we can continue this discussion. outside of that, merry christmas!

The typical TAG is a fish. Rakeback hides a lot.

James, One of the central themes in Stox's book is to have good preflop equity and find ways to showdown with marginal hands. You're suggesting something totally different, which is to exploit players who fold too much. TheHip41's point seems to be "times are good and they'll always stay good."

Am I close?

How is your table selection at live play?

pretty damn close.

we make money by exploiting mistakes. if an opponent has a pattern of making certain mistakes repeatedly(whatever they may be), we should attack them. in this case, i'm saying a tight game isn't necessarily an unprofitable game if it is tight due to the fact that it has players routinely making(at least) the mistakes that you just mentioned.

First off, I know you are a good player, and you are an above average poster. So don't think I'm just attacking you personally.

On with my post:


I think this is the point I have the most problem with. I think that any table that has 9 opponents at it, and none of them have a VPIP above 30 is by definition a "bad table"

Loose passive players make a table good. Now, there can be really really bad for you tight tables, and slightly profitable tight tables, but I'm saying that if you have 0 players that have a VPIP above 30, it's a bad table. Relative to really tight/aggressive tables it might be good, but it's not a "good table"

And Daver, nice to see you again. Times and games are always good to me because I don't play unless I have direct position on a super fish.

I may not be the best player, but I can pound on a 55/6/1.0 with the best of them.

hip,

so if a tables stats are 22/4 with a wtsd of 45% you wouldn't play?

what if the wtsd was 25%?

this is extreme, but i'm trying to make a point. i think you are being to narrow in your interpretation.

so whatever, i'm done. we are going to have to agree to disagree on this, but i don't know that it really makes a crap anyway. if the game with the 44VPIP opens i'm definitely getting a seat in it. but if there isn't one available, you might see me in a 20VPIP game if the conditions are right. gl.

james, looking for playable tables using only the table VPIP is dead. I haven't looked at that stat for a year because it's not important.

If you have this line up. 25-15 25-15 25-15 25-15 50-3 the table average would be 30VPIP, but that is a good seat next to the 50-3.

If the tables is this 40-25 35-20 66-35 30-20 25-15, your average is 40, but this table is much, much worse for you than the first table.

I think looking for individual seats at each table next to the fish is the way to go. Looking just at table averages isn't enough. I would strongly suggest reading though that whole table selection thread, because it can only help.

i'm not arguing that when looking for a game, going by table stats only sucks. i was only asking because i thought you were referring to table stats in a previous post, but you were discussing not having any players with a vpip above 30, so my mistake. you select games well. kudos.

i read that thread a while back and i agree that it is good. alot of above average posters weighted in with their thoughts.

thanks for the conversation. gl.

At the low limits with the devastating effect of the rake this is flat out wrong

James,

At SS, w/o ridiculous RB and bonuses or if you are propping, playing in semi tough games is an utter waste of time. In one of stox's 2/4 vids, he commented that he didn't think he could beat that table in the long run. TheHip has a point.

i agree. playing in a tough small stakes game is a waste of time. but the point i'm making is tight doesnt necessarily = tough. if it's the right mix of tight players(i.e. some weak/tight, tight passives) that make certain mistakes(don't show down enough, don't defend from teh blinds enough, MUBS, etc.) we can exploit those mistakes for profit.

If i'm playing 5-10 and 10-20, if I get a direct position on a 66/5, it's a good table.

At 2/4 and 1/2, one could argue there are no good tables, because the rake just crushes your winrate.