i never said u sucked. i just said you were "meh". Also, I saw nanonoko doing a lot of right stuff for the wrong reasons, beacuse of that, he was somewhat hard to play against

I never said you said I sucked :P

Just surprised how you could make a judgement about my play in so little hands. FWIW I prolly I am "meh" .
Plus my irritation towards miller, and the "I am the greatest x1000" came out...

Last time I sat with miller he was berating me for no reason at all, about 15 minutes straight. I said like 2 sentences to the effect of..

"why are you obsessed with me? Plz stop talking"
"do you not have friends? stop talking to me"

lol

The guy plays 10/20 regular and think he is a great pokerplayer. Im sure he got a good reason to not make real money at higher limits

*

OP, u shouldnt listen to what the big egos says in this thread. Rake is huge at $10/20 and since its a pretty low limit u need a big edge to really make $. U will not make any substantial moey out of 90% of the regulars.

I dont sit down at a table with only regulars and 1 fish. Its just to tricky to play if u multitable and ur edge is smaller then u think (only 1/5 of the fishmoney)

I think u need at least 2 unknowns at a table. Sit down, and leave if u see that one of the unknowns knows how to play (after 50 hands he is 32/19, AF 2.5... thats enough, dont play him... u dont need to play 353 hands and try to understand his weaknesses, just leave and avoid).

Black dude looking menacing

kiddo,
do you have a large PT db? I only have like 50k hands on this comp so its not much use, but could you look up numbers to support your argument. I would have thought the difference in ev between 5 decent regulars and 5 good regulars would be small in comparison to the difference between 2 unknowns (assume 38/13 on average?) and one huge fish (50/5?). The trick is figuring out the difference between an average and a good regular i guess.

Jesus, I take a week off, and the old peen waving thread is replaced by a new, equally inane, peen waving thread.

sethypooh, you have a large PT db, right? Can you weigh in on the discussion kiddo and I are having?

My intuition is with you, (that the difference between "TAGFISH" and real fish is bigger than between Solid TAGS and and tagfish) but I don't think I can offer empirical support because A) my 10/20 DB isn't big enough, and B) I'm not sure I have a good enough handle on who is a solid reg and who is a bad reg for the analysis to not be hopelessly biased.

And I think this actually cuts in your favor as well - even if one COULD beat poor playing TAGS for more than out and out fish (which I suppose is possible in an aggro game), the time spent figuring out which are the the poor playing tags and which aren't would probably be better spent just playing against people who make the same obvious pre and postflop mistakes.

yeah im pretty confident its not even close...
Agreeing with costa.

But it also depends on the style matchups..

a weak 17/14/1.5 is going to do much better vs a 60/0/0.8 than a 60/30/4.0 that plays moronically agressive postflop and doesnt hand read well.

A thinking player may be able to exploit both types of fish equally, since they should be able to adjust their style.... Punishing the maniac hard with their TPTK type hands, and not folding..

Your edge over the nit will be to run him over when he has nothing and steal his blinds liberally, then make laydowns when they play back at you..

The amount you can make off this is fairly limited, because he will rarely be making big mistakes..
He's just forgoing a number of small +EV opportunities that you are not.

Big fish on the other hand are going to putting in whole BB drawing dead, semi frequently or NEVER charge you for value betting them...
The same will apply if a NIT is playing these players, since vs LP's, a postflop style similar to a nits is probabily correct.

BAD TAGs still semi-bluff so, your forced to pay off or fold the best hand at times.. LPs rarely will.

Because of the structure of this game, you simply cannot make a huge winrate vs playing these types of players.

These numerous small edges can end up being significant, but once you subtract the 10/20 rake, its probabily neglible..

I use the opposite seat selection. I'd rather be 3bet by a known than an unknown. I'd rather have a calling station act in front of me than behind me. I'd rather button raise vs. a guy who folds 65% of his BBs instead of calling with 70%.

Guys, thanks for the helpful responses. I kind of knew this thread would get like this so I almost didn't ask, but the thought that I might be overly nitty about table selection was something that would really bother me whenever I decided not to sit at a certain table. I wanted to know how other good players handle this situation. Thanks again.

I dont think we disagree on this. I agree that it probably is better, or at least as good, to play against 1 big fish and 5 decent regulars, rather then 3 decent regulars and 2 38/13.

But u dont need to look in PT, because u shouldnt sit at any of these tables. (or if u do, u shouldnt hope to make a lot, even if u are good).

I think what Im trying to say is this: When u want to pick a table wehere u need to have a pretty high BB/100 (because limit isnt that high) treat all regulars as +-0 and try to find a table with at least 2 players that make obvious misstakes. Its not enough with 1 bad player.

You are looking for guys that will call 1BB on turn with 4 outs, not guys that bluffcheckraise turn with 9 outs when it should be obvious that u are going to call.

God I hope that regulars don't toss 65% of their BBs versus a button raise. I guess I'm used to regular meaning "good" and sitting to their right meaning "getting 3-bet all day long". I definitely would rather have a calling station on my right than my left.

YT

This is easier said than done. It is fairly hard to judge a players ability based on one or two erronous plays that you notice when table selecting... who is to say that what he is doing is wrong ? Do you know what the correct 'strategy' is for each individual decision you/opponent faces for each hand played? no. So what this "bad player" is doing could be distant from your strategy, who is to say your strategy isnt also flawed? Also, quick rash judgements like "ooh im going to sit at his table he just called the turn with 4 outs " can cost you a lot of money. This attitude expemplifies a great lack of judgement on your part.

juiiiiiccccceeeee,
its pretty obvious that what kiddo is saying is to look for high vpip/low pfr players (45/10, etc.) and assume they make big mistakes on the postflop streets as well. If you decide to regularly contribute to these forums you'll quickly realize he's not dumb and knows its rare to have enough hands/knowledge on someone to be able to evaluate his postflop play with any certainty.

And what I am saying is that it is dangerous to make these assumptions. If you know that it is hard to judge a players post flop play with a small sample of hands, then why are you saying that you should assume that the (40/10) player is making mistakes post flop?

Because on average players with those preflop statistics make much more postflop mistakes than players with 30/20 preflop staticists..

So, why not use the limited information you have, join the game, then re-asses once you have 40 hands or so?

Some information is better than no information obv, even if its not always accurate.. Its not like your stuck to play at that table forever..

yep, thanks, I thnik preflop misstakes is more important then anything else because if u dont do this right, u normally arent very good... if u dont know the basics u normally (yes, normally, not always) are a loser

basically, im just trying to give our OP an idea of how I do when I choose a table at 10/20

and i think poker is like driving, 95% are sure they are better then average

It'd be correct to raise almost any 2 vs a guy like this...I do have a regular in my pt that tosses 71% over 1100 hands (including co and sb steals too)

I studied this issue a little bit a few months ago. This is my result over 350,000 hands by # of fish at the table. I defined fish here as VPIP > X%, and I didn't use PFR% in the definition. Unfortunately even though it's not a big deal, I'd rather not say what X is. If you guessed, you'd be close.

This is filtered for 5-6 handed. Limits range from .10-.20 to 15/30, I'd say the average is 5/10. So this is after rake of a couple of BB/100.

You can see how bad my table selection sucked before I did this study.

# of fish | Bets Won | # Hands | BB/100

0 371 68168 .54
1 591 102254 .58
2 664 51699 1.28
3 279 14833 1.88
4 79 2784 2.84
5 -26 216 -12.4 </font>

that is pretty awesome. i wonder if other big samples show the same. i'm guessing X is 45%

miles,

[censored] you

disjunction,
this is really interesting results. thanks for posting them.

im semi lazy but would like to do a similar test in my database... wherre is the filter for htis stuff?