Interested to hear everybody's philosophy on table selection here.

My first table I sat down at last night I had a really big big skill advantage on everybody there. 9 just easy marks at the table. Rarely find spots like that anymore I feel like. However the table was suuuuuper tight nitty. Yes I'd likely be able to make a slow crawl up in profit but It'd be a slog. We are talking a ton of guys raising PF and getting 0 or 1 or maybe 2 callers. Tightest table I've been on in a while.

I moved tables and got sat in a game with a 3 decent to good regs and 5 people that seemed standard average to poor rec guys once I'd played with them for a while and gotten a read. I still definitely was the best player at this table but it was less of a skill advantage (maybe even a lot less) than the previous one. However chips were flying around on this table, lots of big stacks, a few bad bluffs and hell everyone was yucking it up and having a good time so it was just plain more fun to play on.

I guess my question is, from a strictly profit perspective, which table would you sit down at if you had the choice?

If you are playing low stakes (2/5 and under), you want splashy tables, where there's action and money to be won. At a nitty table, sure, you can come out ahead, but the rake will be very high compared to size of the pots. Plus, don't you enjoy the action yourself?

Oh definitely.

Im confused the biggest leak of low limit players is playing too many hands. Table one seems like they dont have this leak. I think your assessment of the table is wrong.

Table 2 sounds like the better table across the board. If every pot is being raked 10% it's hard to make much of a profit so to make the most money you need a table where the pots get big enough that the rake caps out.

Also totally agree with what EvilEmpire said table 1 sounds like it has stronger players to me. Splashy tables usually mean stupid players and just cause someone is a reg doesn't mean they're good. I'd say 80-90% of the people I play are regs since I'm in a non touristy area and I make a nice profit.

Just go clear a couple of things up...

Table 1 players were universally tight tight...not taggy. Tight passive. 100% readable. No bluffing. Played on that table for about 2 hours before switching. These players weren't good. They were tight.. bad tight. Big difference.

Table 2 was laggy. Good laggy for the most part although there were a few marks. Splashy/Laggy doesn't mean bad. I'd argue the best players at any NL cash game today are semi lag to full lag. This table certainly didn't have those type of "best players" but I'm 100% confident in my read that the majority of this table were much more skilled than anybody at table 1.

Thus the thread.

If you are good at hand reading and bluffing, Table 1 is going to be such glorious, easy, variance-free money.

It depends on how decent the 5 non-regs are at the loose table, though. If they're your standard loose-passive live player who are having trouble keeping their head above water with the 3 lagg regs pumping the pot up all the time and are responding by getting the money in a ton of bad spots, that can be nice too. It's not fun to share your action with other good players (*especially* laggs), but if the bad players are bad enough and splashing enough and their stacks are deep enough, the leaks can be big enough to chug a huge winrate. What sucks is when their stacks drain quickly, and you're at a table with multiple good lagg-regs, a couple of fish with 50bb stacks, a couple of newcomers with limited reads, and another newcomer who moved over from Table 1.

Table 1 is definitely the ezmoney table, though.

Some LAGs might be winning players (hard to tell cause they tend to both win and lose money fast) because I find a lot of players adjust incorrectly to them but I disagree with this statement and have never met a LAG at 1/2 or 1/3 that I thought was good. In fact they are my favorite type of opponent. But if you feel you have a bigger edge at table 1 it might be better but you'll have to weigh that against the higher percentage of rake you'll be paying there.

then you've never meant a good LAG. It is just a better strategy overall.

Here's a problem with table 1. Typical hands you are going to win will go like that.

UTG+1 limps, HJ limps folded around to Hero in CO who makes it 13, blinds fold, UTG+1 calls, HJ folds.

Pot is $31

Flop comes out. UTG+1 checks, we bet $16. UTG+1 folds.

$3 goes to rake. $1 goes to a BBJ drop, Hero tips $1 to the dealer.

Hero wins a pot of $26. But $13 of that were our money in the first place. So, we win $13 (and of course we are not going to win 100% of those pots, since the tight passive villains will hit flops sometime and even though we will have easy time getting away, we will still lose our preflop raise and a c-bet).

Such table would be great in a tournament or a 5 10 game, but in low limit games, you really want the table to play splashy if you want to show a decent winrate. The only advantage of table 1 would be if we have an extremely limited bankroll and want want to minimize variance at all costs.

It depends how tight they are preflop. If OP is talking about 10/3s, then yeah, the rake is going to win. I (maybe incorrectly) assumed that they were more like 20/5s. That is, they're playing in-line preflop and fit-or-fold postflop, but we're still averaging 3-way pots when we raise, and of course, when *no one* calls, there's no rake at all.

Good point. Rake is 10% 5 max +2 BBJ drop. Not awful but not great. Definitely a factor.

If you want to beat the rake on table one you have to get those nits out of their comfort zones enough that they start playing back at you more and getting more sticky. You have to get them ready to stack off against you with TPWK. You need to get it to the point where they are willing to overplay medium strength hands against you for stacks.

In order to do this you need to be the action at the table, you don't want them to respect you you want them not to respect you. Your money isn't made in getting them to fold over and over but in getting them to eventually snap and start putting lots of money in light against you. In order to do this you don't want them saying 'a look at this good tough lag here,' no you want them saying 'god dammit, how does this fishy punk keep getting so lucky against me, he's playing every hand for a raise doesn't he know how bad that is.'

In order to get them to this point you have to be really aggressive, don't raise once per orbit, raise 3 times an orbit. Raise near every button and cutoff. Be super aggressive and relentlessly aggressive. But when you do this it's you against 8 players suddenly. So you'd better be sure you're as good as you think you are. They have the ability to just sit their and best hand you if you're not careful, so your hand reading needs to be laser sharp and needs to be on the whole time.

Any time you're not the *best* player at a table you're taking a haircut.

If you're exaggerating your skill it could very well be that you are better off at table 1.

Besides, even nits can make a mistake for their whole stack.

I would choose table 2 but I don't think table 1 is necessarily an awful choice.

If we don't get out to play very often Table 2 is the easy choice.

If we intend to grind Table 1 is a better choice IMHO.

Interesting...there doesn't seem to be a consensus here

If your bankroll and yourself emotionally can handle the variance, take whichever game you have a higher expected hourly in.

A lot of people would probably be better off taking the nitty table with 80% of the WR but with 50% of the variance. (random numbers)

Let's say 3 limps & you raise to $17. Blinds fold & you get one caller.

Flop [$36 raked] checked to you, you bet & V folds.

You tip $1.00 & profit $18.00. If there were only 2 limpers b4 you raised, you win $1.00 less than you risked.

This is what U call a "rake poisoned table."

Also, when you get 4 limpers, you raise & everyone folds, where I play they rake even though there's no flop. So, you profit $10 & if you don't give the dealer 10% of your profit & hands like this happen often, you can sense the dealer's frustration.

Life's a bee-atch playing 1/2 NL at these tables when they rake even when there's no flop.

In your op you say table 1 has a ton of guys raising it up preflop but then later you say they are weak passive limpers. Which is it?

If you're as good as you say you are you should know which table to sit at.

Whoah, calm down there. I think everybody else understood what I meant.

I should have more correctly phrased it "there were tons of times when guys raised preflop and would get 0 or 1 caller".

#GrammarPolice

#Hammerdagramer@2+2.... Still, I try & proof read my posts
I still leave out info that shoulda' been put in etc.

You should probably do some soul searching about the bolded, because I seriously doubt you're as skilled as you think you are if you didn't mention how much money was on the table at either one.

If you really are the best player, you want to be at table 2, where there is more "money in motion."