Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek
For a while during my previous session, I was sitting at a table with 3 other very solid players (all undoubtedly winners), something I almost never do. But I was also sitting with 3 incredibly terrible players (all of whom I had actually never played with before but it was clear they had no clue what they were doing). I had actually had no idea how to evaluate the goodness/badness of the table overall.
That is most likely a very good table. Games with multiple pros can be quite profitable IF you have terrible spewtards at the game. The worst players often lose at 100BB an hour or more. If you have three of these guys they are basically donating 300BB/hr to the remaining six players. There are rake considerations but if 200BB/hr is chopped up amongst the remaining six players you get 33 BB/hr.
Of course they may not be quite that bad and the other pros may get a bigger share than you but a few whales can feed a whole table of sharks.
I evaluate games by estimating the winrates of various players on average.
For example...we have a game where the other players are
one crusher wins 12BB/HR
two pros win 8BB/HR
one nit wins 5BB/HR
three regfish losing 10BB/HR
one donk losing 50BB/HR
So on net the players are donating (10*3 + 50 - 5 - 2*8 - 12) = 55BB/HR to the house and other players. If we are the first or second best player this is a decent game. Notice what a huge effect the one donk has.
But here's another game where no one is particularly good but we would have trouble making much money
four nits win 5BB/HR
two super nits break even
two regfish lose 10BB/HR
At a table like this I am definitely the best player but the others are donating and taking pots at rates that cancel each other. This game is not beatable. The money is not being lost fast enough. Yeah I can probably win a little but I have to pay rake averaging several blinds an hour.
This is admittedly an overly simplistic table analysis as these winrates are not how the player performs at that specific table. Nits for instance are able to win because spewtards donate to them when they hit sets. At this second table it is likely every other player is actually losing, but they are mostly losing to the house in this dynamic so I still prefer the first table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Crusher
I agree with you in regards to table selection. I also tend to go to the table with the least pros/grinders. One mistake I think a lot of pros make is they go to the game that is playing the biggest or the one that has the biggest whale rather than the table that is the softest. Often times all the pros will transfer to one table leaving other less exciting tables to be more profitable.
Yeah I would generally rather be at a table with nobody light 3 betting me or bluffing me where I can run over the modestly losing players than be at a table with one whale and a bunch of pros. But occasionally the one whale is so bad it's worth it. I've seen drunk maniacs losing at a rate of 300+BB/HR over long periods. These tables are just massively profitable when they exist. But most whales aren't losing anywhere close to that fast so I agree the pros might overestimate the benefit of transferring to the whales table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Crusher
That being said playing with 3 other pros can still be very profitable for the simple fact that there are still 5 rec players at the table and these players tend to be terrible (regardless of whether they are spewing) and most of the hands you play will be against these rec players rather than the pros anyways.
Sure it can be. Depends on the exact dynamic. But sometimes you have an overly aggressive pro regwarring with you and I try to avoid that at all costs. Especially if the other recs are just modestly losing. Just because players are recreational doesn't mean they're terrible. I mean yeah they likely aren't *good* but where I play anyway they are usually skilled enough to be break even or better at 1/2 so in 2/5 games they are just slightly losing.
If the other pros aren't the aggro regwarring crusher type then sharing a table with them is more profitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Crusher
FWIW, I've played with tables that have had 8 pros or even 9 pros at them. I tend to avoid these sort of games but even a game with 9 pros can be profitable because pros don't play their A game 100% of the time and playing in such a game becomes a war of attrition that normally results in some of the pros making mistakes (Also, all pros aren't equal).
This is true...in these types of games some pros will run bad and get very tilted which can make these games profitable if you're more tilt immune than the others. And if you're more fundamentally skilled of course. But I don't like assuming I'm better than other pros. It's a dangerous mindset and even when true can get us in trouble regwarring with slightly worse players when we should mostly be focusing on crushing the fish.
There are a few pros in my room that when tilted basically become whales because they bring with them 1000BB or more, always buy in max, and are capable of spewing off stacks when running really bad. Recs tilt too but they don't bring 1000BB and rebuy max indefinitely, if they rebuy at all. I think in tough games tilted pros are actually the main source of profit.