As the first COTM I wanted to tackle what I feel is the most important topic after betting strategy; which is how to adjust to different table dynamics. For seasoned players this is going to be fairly trivial, however as a beginners forum I felt it was important to cover the basics first. Within the given explanations of how to adjust to different table dynamics (such as "start limping in EP with a good speculative range") I feel entirely new COTM's could be written, but due to the word restriction per post and the nature of this being a forum I can only give broad strokes.

I will begin by giving what I feel is an acceptable definition of "table dynamics" for people who don't know what I am talking about and it is basically "how the table is playing". Yes, the table consists of 9 to 10 different players but we are playing a field of players and the majority of pots in live poker are multiway. Basically table dynamics is the average of how all the players are playing during any given time frame adjusted for their individual play style.

There is an interview with Limon where he and Bart Hanson talked about the devolution of the HS forum on 2+2. To paraphrase they talked about how every response slowly changed from being: "it depends" to: "lol standard." This likely stems from the dominance of multi tabling and the requirement for "standard lines" and "standard ranges" which are able to squeek out a marginal profit in a wide array of situations (and a reg heavy environment). This small profit per hand is then leveraged by playing a high number of tables and playing many hands/hour. In live NLHE, however, we are given far different initial conditions than what we are given for online NLHE. Online requires consistent balance and a focus on not being able to be exploited by other regs whereas in live NLHE we should be aiming for a strategy which allows us to fully exploit our field of opponents. Due to the slow pace of live NLHE, and the fact that we cannot play more than one table, we need to maximize the EV of every decision and to do this requires the minimization of "standard lines" and the maximization of "it depends" which evolves into "exploitative lines".

However, we will still need a "standard strategy" and "standard lines" when we first sit down at a table. This "standard strategy" should be balanced, aggressive, and positionally aware. For the beginner I would recommend a pretty ABC TAG strategy which is very reliant on the profit shown from card selection, continuation betting, and value betting. This is really well hashed out on every coaching site and the other forums so I won't go into the specifics. Once we sit down and begin playing we are going to need to deviate from this "standard strategy" to maximize our winrate and a lot of times we will have to play very very far away from our "standard strategy" (depending on what yours is) to maximize this winrate. How far we deviate is entirely dependent on the table conditions. In football you often hear about "forcing your will" onto your opponents, but this isn't football this is poker. I call this "pissing into the wind". The essence of what I am advocating is to have your style be entirely dependent upon the table dynamics and not what your "style is". That is to say your "standard strategy" and comfort zone might be very LAG but in a very good game where every pot is opened to >8xbb and every pot PF is >40xbb you will need to really tighten up and focus on card equity. SABR42 and dgiharris had an exchange over this but the fundamental issue this: you are given the table dynamics as they exist and they exist outside of what you can control. You can only control what you do, so you need to ensure that what you do is the best possible decision based on those table dynamics. Below is a little (and famous) speech by Bruce Lee which sums up what I am advocating.



The two juxtaposed concepts in poker are the things we can control, and the things we can't control. The things we can control are: (1a) the games we play in, (2a) the seats we sit in, (3a) the cards we play, (4a) how we play those cards, (5a) our behavior, (6a) how much we buy in for. The things we can't control are: (1b) the dynamics of the games we play in, (2b) who is in other seats, (3b) the cards other people are dealt, (4b) how they play those cards, (5b) their behavior, (6b) how much they buy in for. This list is by no means comprehensive but as you can see 1a and 1b are connected, but 1b is a constant and 1a is a variable. We need to vary 1a in relation to 1b. That is to say, if the game is not good in that no amount of deviation will achieve the $/hr that we would get by moving to another table then we should just move to another table. This all seems very obvious, but it is important to be conscious of these differences and be "mindful" of how you are adjusting so you don't drift back into autopilot (which invariably is your "standard strategy").

For myself I play a very TAG to LAG game (depending on how you define these things). I buy in for 100xbb and I have a very narrow 3bet range until I can determine opening and continuation ranges. I almost never bet/call in any close spot, and in reality I just pass up all marginal calling spots because I am not really capable of ranging my opponents correctly enough when I'm flying blind. I would say my opening range is something like:

EP - 77+, KJs+, ATs+ (100% of the time) and JTs/Qjs some % of the time

MP - 22+, 87s+, AXs+, J9s+, KTo+, JTo+, ATo+

LP - 22+, 65s+, 97s+, AXs+, J8s+, 98os+, ATos+, KTos+

I am not advocating whether or not this is "optimal" but it is about what I do. From this I will immediately begin to deviate depending on who is to my left. If I have very passive opponents to my left where opening raises are going to get called really wide I will begin open limping the more speculative hands in my range and continue open raising the hands that flop top pair where I can value bet them to death. The reason is that speculative hands like 22-66 are basically for set mining and the flexible equity hands like 65s to 97s really require multi street bluffs, such as a lot of double and triple barreling, to show a good profit and I would prefer to do this in position where I have more information about my opponents hands. Furthermore, I just don't make it a point to try to bluff loose passive people off of hands. Now, obviously, there are exceptions to this. If somebody is always calling pf and ch/folding every flop then open wide and exploit them. This is the essence of what I am advocating, that you need to be mindful of the situation and deviate as far away from your standard strategy as possible to exploit the situation as it is presented to you. Your goal is to develop a strategy that crushes your opponents.

Some broad strokes adjustments are: If the table is tight passive I open more hands from more positions and c-bet/double/triple barrel more. If it is loose passive I play a lot of hands but limp the speculative part of my range and raise the "TP equity" part of my range and am less prone to try to barrel people off of their hands. This is especially true on the button, there is no reason to raise a hand like 98 OTB with 6 limpers to you when they are never folding. However we might want to raise QJ. It just all depends.

From the moment I sit down two questions that I ask myself are: (1) Is this is a good table and (2) Is this a good seat. If it is a good table where there is money in play I will stay. If I have a good seat then I won't move. However, if it is is a bad table and my seat sucks then I have no ego on the subject and I am more than willing to play lower stakes or a different table or ask for a seat change button and move to a different seat. I really can't define what a good game or table is, but you play enough and you'll know one if you see one. In reality the rake is so high in live poker that if the game isn't good I'd prefer not to gnash my teeth and play lower. Seat selection is different. Position in live NLHE is paramount as money flows clockwise around the table and I want 4 nits to my left so I have the effective button (as in absolute position, the last person to act on every street) a much higher frequency than otherwise. This then means that the cards that I am dealt (which I have no control over) matter less and I can leverage my skill/position (which I do have control over) and play more hands and win more money. Sometimes though, you get into games where you are forced to play showdown poker. It sounds absurd, but it is a skill to not c-bet into a huge calling station, and it takes skill to not 3bet light or use any of the other "fancy" poker moves which will cost you money. These are used versus nits. In games like this preflop hand selection and thin value betting matter more and more.

Table dynamics can change how you play your cards in other different ways versus individual thinking players. People do adjust (although generally not in very smart ways) to how you are playing. Some times you will need to cbet less, sometimes you need to up your 3bet %, sometimes you need to lower it etc...

I could go on and on and on about different situations and how I adjust (which may or may not be optimal) but the reality is that in NLHE every situation is different and exactly how you should adjust can't be described in some cookie cutter fashion. It requires your in game thinking and being mindful of table dynamics. Sometimes you have to play poker like a slot machine. Sometimes your cards don't matter. This is where our edge comes into play in live poker, we have the time to methodically develop very deep reads on every player and devise optimal exploitative strategies versus individual players and the field of players. This is the essence of of adjusting to table dynamics.

This COTM is by no means meant to be a comprehensive guide, but more of a starting point to raise your consciousness of the importance of adjusting to the table dynamics.

Good post 11t, ime a great table is people limping, if the table doesn't have a lot of limpers I table change, on top of that I start ranging the limpers and how they play postflop, easy game.

Great post 11t,

If I can add to it, I feel a vital component to "adjusting to table dynamics" is the ability to observe what is actually happening at the table.

Imo, too many poker players are too rigid in their thinking about how poker "should" be played. As a consequence, their bias taints their perception and they are only capable of seeing what they want to see. They are unable to accurately see, observe, and analyze what is ACTUALLY happening. Instead, they see a biased fantasy version of real events.

For example. You can have a maniac who is 60/40 (VPIP/PFR) and bet-bet-shoves ever hand he is in, yet all the players at the table will put the maniac on AK, JJ-AA and you will hear these players say, "He must have a set, he had to have the full house, he must have gotten lucky and flopped trips..." when the reality is that it is very unlikely. Simple observation would allow you to deduce that the maniac's range is full of air. However, having a bias will taint your observation to the point where you convince yourself the maniac just has the nuts every time.

Or the reverse, you have the nittiest and most passive player who has a VPIP/PFR of 8/4 and yet when he 4bets your QQ you convince yourself that he can have JJ/AK....

In order to properly adjust and exploit table dynamics you have to be able to properly observe and analyze what you see WITHOUT BEING BIASED.

The above talks about singular players/examples because that's the easiest way to show the point about observation vs our biased perception. But it also applies to the table as a whole.

When I notice a limpy limp fest table I adjust. When I notice a table that likes to gambool and shove, I will adjust. When I notice a super tight fit-n-fold table I will adjust. And my adjustment will be based on actual observation over the course of the session.

And my observation will have nothing to do with my internal poker beliefs about what I think correct poker is. All that matters are the facts. Facts like 6 players limp/calling 4bb raises but snap folding to 8bb raises. Facts like 2 maniacs getting into a leveling war in every hand they are involved in. Facts like a maniac straddling and squeezing 100% of the time. I will not judge, I will not scoff, I will not laugh. I will simply observe and adjust.

Another key component to adjusting is knowing to readjust, one of the mistakes I used to make is ill adjust to the table than the dynamics would change but I would not adjust. Paying attention is key. The dynamics change all the time. If the table is loose play tag. If they are tired of losing waiting for big hands or flop gin play aggressive in position with a wide range. If your raises are not getting respect oop in EP and you're getting 5 callers, snug your utg range and raise bigger

Great post

Very good OP.

The philosophy of this OP is summarized by this FTP ad.



There aren't profitable and unprofitable tables. There are only less profitable and more profitable tables.

Can you please discuss what kind/how much information you need before making an adjustment? Preferably give specific examples pertaining to post-flop play since preflop adjustments have been fairly fully covered in many threads on this forum. I am leaving this purposefully broad but since adjusting is key to poker, how/when to properly adjust is a key component of success. (Directed at OP but open to anyone).

The primary reason why I avoided the nitty gritty details of how to adjust post flop that wasn't the topic I aimed to cover. Furthermore, because of the TL;DRness of forums (and this is something all Freshman in college learn trying to write papers) I wanted to keep it pretty narrow.

I would say that we can break up how quickly we should deviate into like three separate zones. The first zone is when we first get on the table and we are playing our standard strategy and and we adjust fairly slowly for the until we get enough information. Exactly how much information is much easier to say online because we can actually see hands/stats in a HUD but in live poker we can see how people are dressed, if they are upset, if they are drunk etc... and all of these things should affect how we adjust. I am not a big fan of black and white situations so I would say that with experience you learn to feel these things out. The second zone occurs once we feel we have enough information on how the table is playing and we begin to adjust very quickly, as in from one hand to the next we immediately go from semi-LAG to TAG and this decision should be consciously made. This would then be "finessed" until we are fairly comfortable with the current table dynamics. The third zone would occur when we are playing at our deviated strategy instead of our standard strategy. Now, one thing I definitely did not touch upon is that table dynamics (as the term dynamic means) are constantly changing and games flare up or become nitty depending on showdowns/changing lineups/general meta game stuff. If you detect a shift in the table dynamics you need to begin to aggressively changing your strategy again. A lot of this stuff, I feel, is pretty intuitive to more experienced players but I am trying to hash out the general thinking for newer players who are still stuck on general betting strategy.

For your regular player who does not adjust in forming an strategy to exploit them I would say that the information on how to exploit them is out there and that it is impossible to give a detailed guide in a single post for all the leaks/exploitable tendencies players have. On how much information you need and what to do I would think that if I was going to derive an equation on adjusting to your standard rec player it would be like the rate at which you should adjust to an individual is inversely proportional to the length of time you play with somebody. That is to say, you should adjust fairly quickly to all new information in a new situation but as time goes on and your "reads" get better (assuming they are actually accurate) the rate at which you adjust should decrease. That is because it becomes more likely that out of the norm behaviors are simply outliers. Basically people do out of the norm behavior at times. This is pretty similar to control theory if you have any background in that field.

I know I didn't really answer your question Setsy, but one time I asked a physics professor a question and he replied, "excellent question but that is outside the scope of this class." Your questions are good but on how to adjust post flop to individual players I feel is a little outside the scope of the thread.

Great post, especially as this is an area neglected by many. What interests me is the extent to which a player can influence the dynamics of a table. This is a difficult topic because it can result in a highly variable "ego" based game style, which, for some, is perhaps not advisable. But, the reason I'm interested in this topic at the moment is the rake-limitations on transferring in my room (insofar as you're charged a 2bb fee every time you transfer, and, sometimes, there are only 2 tables at my stake, so transferring has negligible benefits). I notice this especially on tight-passive tables, where, by playing a LAG style (and with an element of recklessness), villains will switch to loose-passive out of frustration, and, subsequently, become more exploitable (this strategy, of course, will be countered by stronger regulars who are able to 3bet light etc., and properly adjust to your style). In this sense, you could argue that table dynamics are not beyond our control.

I think I poorly communicated what I meant. I didn't mean to ask how to adjust.

Poker is a game of incomplete information. Usually, incremental information you receive is just that - a small, new piece of evidence. My question was really about how you decide when you have enough info to draw a conclusion rather than what to do with the info.

For instance: you c-bet a dry flop (standard). Dude c/r you. You fold (standard with most of your range). Was he fast-playing a strong hand? Re-bluffing you when he knows you have a weak range? Raising a medium-strength hand for info? Impossible to say from that one data point. The question I am asking is: what is the minimum amount of info you require before you think you can draw an intelligent conclusion about the opponent's strategy in this situation? Obviously if he does it 5 times and each time shows 72o we can reach a very strong conclusion, but waiting for that much data is way too long. If we decide to adjust right away after the first time he does it and doesn't show, that's way too soon. So the question is:

What is our general process for deciding that we have crossed the minimum threshold necessary for a given situation for us to decide we now have sufficient data to make adjustments?

To be honest I don't think it takes a whole lot to reach the minimum threshold if you are very observant from the beginning, i.e. see what hands he gets to shodown with, his mannerisms, mood and comments. For me, it takes maybe 1 hour max to get a general idea. I think the key starting point is to have a perceived opinion that the player is a standard rec player (a guy with leaks but a understanding of the game), and then modify those changes as you go on. Obviously the more hands and body language we see, the better we can pinpoint neccessary adjustments to the continuous modifying of the player's tendencies. We have a lot of information out there when we are observant.

Great post OP I enjoy reading it. Sometimes I try to iso too wide in LP, like the 98ss example at the wrong tables. Where people like to call.

Question though: I understand and agree with overlimping speculative suited hands (at tables where the cascade of limpers are surely going to call), with this being said are you trying to go for the Iso raise at a table full of stickies OTB with a hand like ATss? How about A9ss or KJo? Sounds like these are at the bottom of the iso-range given conditions.

I prefer a standard initial strategy that is a bit more on the passive side so that more hands go to showdown and I can get more information on unknowns. I think it is easier to be less aggressive than optimal and ramp up aggression as needed than to start out more aggressive and pull it back a notch.

the first few paragraphs (before the vid) are hands down amazing

Im too tired to understand the others, but omg is the beginning good

Just one small point to add to a good post:

Isn't betting strategy also determined by the table dynamics?

For example, it's a basic concept that when you're value betting you bet the most you think your opponent will call; doesn't that already depend on how you observe your opponent has been playing? For example you'd probably bet more against a calling station but you might bet less to induce a raise (that you're willing to call) if your opponent has been bluff-happy, or you'd bet less to induce a crying call from an opponent who can make big laydowns. You have to know the table dynamics before you can make decisions like these as best you can.

Before I say anything, this was a great COTM if for nothing else than the Bruce Lee video. +2

In my opinion, there are three keys aspects to adjusting to table dynamics.

Information gathering
Adjustments to this information
Exploiting the adjustments made by other players

Our ability to do this quicker and better than our opponents will be crucial to making +EV decisions.

I eschew race, age, and gender when it comes to information gathering. I may give some weight to how someone dresses, or how they sit, move their hands, eyes, or even more importantly, their feet. However, there are good solid players who are scruffy coke addicts, and there are lots of spagrofish that are conservatively dressed and very collected. So until we collect real information, we should, like 11t says, play ABC. This means to bet only for thickish value, and to assume that other players' bets means what they say. Most of this time is clearly spent folding, which should give us lots of time to focus on gathering the information vital to a good session.

We will get two types of information; showdowns, which are explicit data, and frequency, which is implied information.

If someone shows down a hand, particularly in a multiway pot, it is vitally important to focus not so much on the final bet action, but more so to work back to early street action (did he limp/call with AK, for example). This is something that many LLSNL players do not do - if they do see the hand they are often distracted by the entertainment of the street in question ("how did you call that", or "what a suckout") to implement that information. Therefore, this is a key way to adapt quicker and better than the other players.

This way, we get an insight into limp calling, betting, and raising ranges on early streets. Often (incredibly) we are offered free information on what a player will fold (especially if they consider it a 'good' fold worth showing) - let's lap that up. The more information we get about a player's range for calling, limpcalling, or raisecalling a raise/3 bet - will bet the vital information we have to be able to widen our raise / 3betting range. If we cannot specify player tendencies, we should stick to solid value raises.

Showdowns, however, are information that is freely available to everyone at the table. Frequency requires us to make inferences. This is laced with danger, because, for example, I have been dealt QQ+ 4 out of the first 6 hands in a session, and I won without showdown every time execept the last, when I got KK shoved on by 66. Villain was clearly antagonised, and based on limited information, drastically overrreacted. The table then assumed I had it for the rest of the night and barely another big bet of mine got called. These are the kind of adjustments we should be careful with. Players get good runs of cards, but the more they bet, statistically the wider the they could be playing range - that's it. If someone is betting / raising a lot at our table, we should focus not just on him, but on the reactions of the other players at the table. If a player's error is to be too aggressive, then we should be looking to ensnare him, but we'll need a good hand to do it. Trying to out aggro a LAGgy player may make us feel more masculine, but it usually won't win us money. Spot the steaming guy who is dying to screw the LAG, and make sure you adjust to his new, higher propensity to spazz, or get involved in big pots with a wider range, because the LAG is used to getting players raise him, and he will release the wekaer part of his range. The steaming guy won't be able to fold.

Another adjustment (sorry, already tl;dr) that other players fail to make consistently, is to notice when a player is inactive. It is vital to develop some kind of effective HUD system, so that you really know who the 6/4 guys are. Most players just don't remember people that don't play, and imagine their range is the same as an unknown. The same thing goes for 14/14 TAGs. Players adjust incorrectly, and because they only remember these guys raising, and never calling, they remember the aggression, and will forget showdown and frequency evidence, and react based upon their emotional response to being threatened with a raise.

I would say that betting strategy and betting mechanics (things like "raising folds out everything worse and only gets called by better so you are turning your hand into a bluff") are the tools we use whereas table dynamics dictate why we use which tools. It isn't a distinction without a difference, it is just a demarcation between what is applied and how it is applied. Also a lot of betting strategy involves HU pots, but I was trying to focus on how the table is playing as a whole and not just an individual player. You need to be able to see the forest through the trees and understand that while one is compromised of the other, they are two separate entities.

Great post Eleventy!

Eleventy, thanks for putting your time into this.

I think setsys question us THE most important dimension when adjusting to table conditions: how is the table playing postflop?

Llsnl has 2 kinds of tables 90% of the time: Mway limping most of the time w occasional raises, or regular preflop raising +3-5way calling with limited 3betting. Notably, we can have A LOT of control of this by deciding whether or not to be LAG when preflop.

However, postflop conditions vary greatly; if its all old men who play loose-passive pre, and super-fit-fold MUBS post; then the standard raise+ cbet + barrel will mean big$$$.
However, if guys are super-sticky postflop (often happens if there is a maniac aroubd), then we want to think about getting to flops cheap w a wide range, or narrow it down to a range that plays well mway; then we want to value-own.
If the game is all about showdown poker, you're going to need a tp+ hand to win, simple as that.

Many mediocre LAGs have a host of tells/leaks that can be violated w/ r/f lines or light calldowns.

To get an idea of how its playing, postflop, average potsize early will tell you a lot; along w whether or not value is won at showdown will give enough info to start rapidly changing as early as 5ish hands in.

Before adjusting our preflop strat, though we shoukd consider the postflop weaknesses of the table first.

Is that really how you say it?

I always thought it was short for First Lieutenant

tips borrowed from a few interviews with limon


when you first sit down you should be sitting there thinking, "how am I going to stack each and every one of these players"- you literally have nothing else to do except identify leaks in other people's games and pre-game plan how you will exploit them

put away your cell phone... do not hesitate or wait to get a seat or table change- i play with the same 30 people in a player pool every night, and every single night i get position on the other 3 reasonable players in my game so that i am literally never put into a tough spot-- the other guys, seemingly pretty good players, do not every move seats--- i make an extra 50 bucks a night off this i bet- it is ok and optimal to change seats and games whenever you see fit, not at the next dealer, not when you get your next beer, when you have the thought that "oh this sucks havign this guy on my left" you should insta seat change

watch how people react after winning or losing a big pot-- never underestimate the power of short term tilt- further you can often spot a good player by someone who gets 4 outed and has almost zero emotional reaction- these are the guys that i fear

watch for bet sizing tells- small hand= small bet? big bet = bluff? small bet= value bet... almost all rec players give off tells this way-- i do to but since people refuse to exploit them i dont mind doing it- after all they are on their iphone checking email while i am varying my bet size based on villian, villians range, my image, etc

really think about how you are going to make the most money---- sure you have 77s in the sb and likely have the best hand after 7 limpers... but in reality in a deep stacked no limit game with lots of bad players i want everyone and their brother to be in the pot when i flop my set... i want the guy at the next table over to come in.... so yah i could make it 40 and take down 14 dollars... or i could play to flop a set

bet/folding is still the nuts, even as the games get tougher, people simply do not bluff at all or enough... but this is not a license to start trying it unless you are convinced the better is a thinking player/ 2+2er/ bart hanson devotee--- these mofos will still bet/call you all day, despite the flush card hitting, despite the nuts changing, despite your perceived self uber taggy image.... but you can relentlessly bet/fold your way to 3 streets of value all day long

and finally, keep the fish happy..... these people are the reason poker exists- talk wine, talk football, grumble along with them after you stack them and tell them it was just a train wreck,

also, talk loose/play tight---- make comments like "oh if you raise that flop im just going to stick it in there all day, i has top pair" etc and sound believable--- you want to be perceived as an action gambly player if anyone is paying attention, but in reality you are simply never putting in huge $ w out the nuts


these are a bunch of random thoughts, but i think they relate to table dynamics

Good post. Most of us know we need to adjust in poker. The tricky part is when and how =). Your post begins to outline the factors we should consider in deciding when to adjust, which is a good start.

Part of the point of my original question of how much info to wait for before adjusting is because I kind of seen two schools of thought on this. One says that you should adjust as soon as you see any evidence of something and then re-adjust when you get counter-evidence, the other school says to wait for more info and to heavily give preference to showdown info over frequency info.

Most of this has limited applications in LLNL, but I have been thinking about this topic a lot, which is why I asked the questions I did.

Setsy; start adjusting after 4-5 hands. Main info points: potsize, which players at the table seem to be alert/thinking (e.g. the 30s guy who folds 4 straight hands but is playing close attention, and may even say something nice to the likely fish), and if there is repeated showdown. Also that should be enough time to tell if the game is built around 1-2 loose/crazy maniac-style players. If 5 hands go buy without showdown, I adjust radically different than if 3 hands are 3bet and shipped on the flop w/ 1 pair type hands being the relative nuts.

I need to adjust alot though, my base game is a spewy 40/10

The biggest key to adjusting after assessing the table dynamics preflop is to adjust to individual players postflop.

Have not read yet. But thank you, in advance, for reviving the COTM.

Brag - This was one of the two topics I suggested.