Due to some interesting circumstances, I have a choice between these two ten-handed tables:

(A) No rake and no time charge. Five solid players. Four bad players.

(B) No rake but $11.50/hr time charge. Two solid players. Seven bad players.

My normal game is super short-stack ($100 buy-in) because of my small bankroll. Therefore, I start off playing super tight. If I double-up, I play slightly looser. Also, I like to buy-in short because I think the solid players are better than me.

If you were in my shoes, from a strictly money-making perspective, which table do you sit at?

What is your winrate? The 4bb/hr rake at table B will significantly cut into whatever profit you are making. I'm assuming you aren't winning 10bb+/hr shortstacking so I think table A is your best option.

Definitely table A if you're shortstacking. If you're playing a proper shortstack strategy you should be fairly insulated against the higher skill level of table A, as whatever post-flop decisions you have should be pretty straight forward due to your stack size.

Even against weaker opponents, paying almost 4bb/hr and what equates to 10% of your starting stack in range seems it would be less profitable.

I would play table A. If you're playing super shortstacked (which 33bbs is) you should be playing super tight and just looking to play pots with premium hands where you can double up against the poor players. Meanwhile the better players won't really have an advantage on you since you'll be playing so few pots, plus if they play a deeper stacked strategy against each other they'll actually be making too loose preflop mistakes against your super shortstack strategy.

GimoG

That makes sense.

I've only played 87 hours (about 70% short stacking and on table A) so I don't have a good sample size. I've won $25.50/hr during that time.

Sounds like you have a good thing going at table A. The rake in table B almost cuts your table A win rate in half, so the bad players at table B would have to be *really* bad to make up the difference.

How long term is your time horizon for these games? I only ask because if you consistently short stack with 33bb, it becomes painfully obvious what you're trying to do, even to some of the players you consider bad.

When you play 2 street poker and constantly show up with the goods, even the droolers will start catching on and adjust.

I see this at the casino all the time - OMC limps with a premium, it somehow goes to showdown in a $30 pot and kills action against him for the next 5-6 hours. Everyone literally snap folds to a single raise of his.

That being said, I'd still prefer table A. 4bb/hr is huge for a 1/3 game. As others said, you have to be absolutely confident you can crush the table and achieve double your winrate compared to table A.

I don’t understand your OMC example. I’m rarely limping. I’m raising or three-betting like 95% of my hands preflop. If everyone starts snap folding against me, I will loosen my preflop range by raising more hands.

If the droolers adjust, then I bluff more against them.

Also, if I double up, I don’t leave the table. I play looser preflop with 66bb and 100bb stacks because that’s the correct strategy.

The bad players don’t realize that I’m playing differently or that I should play different with bigger stacks. That’s why they are bad players. They don’t understand that stack size is a big factor for playing poker correctly. This lack of knowledge gives me an advantage.

Table B ainec. Your profit comes from the bad players. You rotate money with the good players. Eventually as your bankroll grows, you want to be playing deep against as many bad players as possible.

I take it that the first game is a home game and the second is in a poker room.

Does the first room have a dealer? Is there free booze and food in the first game? Makes a big difference where I would play.

Time charge is a bad model for proper tight short-stack play. Much better for deeper laggy play. Definitely not worth paying unless the additional couple of bad players are very bad.