Game Selection

I once read a phrase in a poker book:-

?If you were the 6th best poker player in the world, you?d be pretty pleased. Until, you sit at a
table with the top players?
!nline, there are an abundance of sites, and tables per stake, that you can play at and sit at. So
why pick the first table that has an empty seat? "hat?s la#y, and la#y doesn?t $et you the money%
I?d estimate that $ood $ame selection can double a player?s winrate. "hat sounds a lot ? but I?d
also estimate that &'( at least of my profit comes from fish% If you are on a table with no fish then
it follows you ha)e less chance of winnin$%
So how do you find a $ood table? *ere is my ad)ice.
+hen I lo$ onto ,ull "ilt, I $et -oker"racker and -oker .ce *ud runnin$ immediately. I then scan
the tables at my limit, and load up all those that ha)e the ma/ority of players with decent si#ed
stacks at them. "his is )ital because playin$ a$ainst short stacks destroys the implied odds of
hands like pocket pairs and suited connectors, and ne$ates the effect of a 0.G or semi 0.G
style. It also follows that if you consider yourself a winnin$ player, you?d want to sit on a table
where there?s more money to win. "hereby, makin$ more of your ed$e.
I?ll then wait for a couple of minutes for *U1 to pick up the tables. !nce this is done, I?ll scan
each indi)idual table.
I?ll basically ditch any table with an a)era$e 2-I- of 34'(. "his would be a ti$ht table $enerally.
!ne e5ception to this rule would be if there was one fish on there ? I mean a massi)e donator ?
with like 65 buyin or more, and there was a seat a)ailable on his direct left or two to his left. I?d
probably take that seat.
.fter doin$ all these processes, I?ll ha)e a shortlist of tables to choose which ones I will play. "he
ne5t step is to analyse which is the /uiciest?*ere I?m lookin$ for players who are loose7passi)e ?
I?m talkin$ 2-I- of 89'( with a -,: of 3;'( - with decent money in front of them. I wouldn?t
really tend to a)oid a particular re$ular, but if there are a couple of decent re$ulars with a fish I
may $i)e the table a miss possibly.
.fter all this, you should be able to compact all the a)ailable tables into a $roup which will be the
tables you are $oin$ to play at.
If there is a waitin$ list for a table ? /oin it. <e patient% 1on?t be tempted to $i)e up waitin$ on a
table and /oin a worse one.
+hen I choose a particular seat on a table, I don?t really want any loose players on my direct left.
<asically they are $oin$ to be floatin$ you without knowin$ it, meanin$ you are playin$ pots out of
position which is ob)iously not ideal or conduci)e to winnin$ poker.
=ou want these loose players to your ri$ht ? +here you ha)e position on them and you can make
them pay for playin$ pots out of position with substandard hands and suboptimal decision
makin$.
If I was offered a seat on a /uicy table with a 6'7 with ;.5 buyin who would be on my direct left,
I?d probably turn it down and wait for a better seat. Unless the table was full of players like that,
in which case I?d ha)e to take it% <ut $enerally, I?d re/ect the seat and wait to $et position on my
tar$et>s?.
It?s also important to realise when a table has $one bad, and that it?s time to find another one. If
table 2-I- has $one below 4'(, that?s often a pretty $ood si$n. !ther factors may be if your
main fish lea)es the table, meanin$ you are left with ti$ht re$ulars. @ust walk away and find
somewhere better to play%
I?)e been in situations before where there?s been a bi$ fish on a table, and 4 or 9 pretty solid
players. I?)e then stacked the fish almost immediately, and he has left the table. .s soon as that
bi$ blind hits me, I am $one too% It?s not e5pected of you to stay at the table after you?)e won a
bi$ pot. -oker is a ruthless $ame, and you ha)e to take the decisions which will benefit you the
most.
.nd that is my $uide to $ame selection. .s I mentioned earlier, $ood $ame selection can really
boost your winrate. If you don?t practice it, you really are throwin$ A away%

-,ruitypro