Table Selection: The Undervalued Weapon
By Samuel V.R.
The biggest strategic advantage of online poker over live play is not the speed the hands are dealt, nor the slightly lower rake or absence of tipping -- those are each dwarfed by the incredible advantage of being able to pick and choose from dozens of different subsets of potential opponents.
I am consistently amazed at the blank stares I receive when I ask other high-stakes players about their online table-selection regimen. The typical response is some variation of: "What do you mean, table selection? I dunno, I typically just take the first open seat I find at the stakes I want to play, or get on the waitlist if tables are full."
I have been fortunate enough to maintain a pretty healthy winrate at the high-stakes tables, but my dirty little secret that I don't go out of my way to advertise is that I only achieve that high winrate as a function of the juicy games in which I sit! I shudder to think of what might happen to my rate of return if I were forced to play against a random group of opponents. Would it take a 25% nosedive? Could it get slashed in half or worse!?? Fortunately, I've never been required to find out.
Poker is a game of relative strengths: it really doesn't matter how technically skilled you are -- the primary determinant of your eventual success is the disparity between your own abilities and those of the opponents with whom you sit. Accordingly, there are two principal avenues to improve your winrate:
- Work to improve your own play, or
- Do your utmost to select for yourself a poor panel of opponents.
There are hundreds of paper and electronic resources dedicated to the former, and while some pay lip service to the importance of table selection, I have yet to see any author give the topic the reverence it deserves.
So let's get down to the nuts and bolts of just how you find yourself an online table full of donators. First things first: if you don't have Pokertracker and PokerAce, you're doing yourself a disservice. Spend $80 and get them. It's embarrassing just how valuable they are; you won't find a better poker bargain as long as you live. I would honestly estimate that the eighty bucks I dropped on those two applications has earned me upwards of $50,000.
Pokertracker (PT) is software that lets you collect information on all the hands you play, and PokerAce (PAH for short) is add-on software that will display your PT statistics (on not only your own play, but your opponents' too) right on top of the table as you play. Some poker sites even let you collect data on hands you just observe -- e.g. you don't even have to be playing in a hand to collect data on the players involved.
Disclaimer: I know I toss around a lot of PokerTracker acronyms in the following section. To some of you, they'll come as old news, but if they're somewhat foreign to you, please heed my advice and familiarize yourself with the PokerTracker software and all of its features. You won't be sorry.
Step 1 is building up a robust PT database full of statistics on your opponents. Even when I'm busy with work, travel, and other responsibilities that don't let me play poker, I make sure that my computer is actively datamining hands from many different sites so that when I finally do get around to playing, my database is as complete as I can make it.
When I sit down at a typical 10-person table, it is rare that I don't have statistics on at least 7 or 8 of my opponents. So what to do once you've got your PT database chalk full of statistics?
Maybe I can best illustrate by giving an example of my typical table selection process. I login to the poker software, and open up as many tables as I can -- let's say I'm feeling like playing some 10-max limit games: I might open up as many $20/$40 and $30/$60 tables as I can find. I've got PAH configured to show me the table's saverage VPIP ("volume put in pot") and PFR ("pre-flop raise) statistics...(as many exotic stats as PT can tell you about your opponents, I really think that VPIP and PFR account for 98% of what the typical player needs to know to get a good read on the players at his table.)
If the table's average VPIP is under 26, I'll close the table without a second thought. If it's over 30, I'll nearly always take a seat or get on the waiting list; that's a pretty darn good table. If it's between 26 and 29, I'll take a closer look at the individual players at the table. I typically take into account the following considerations when deciding whether or not to sit at a promising table:
- Just how many fish are seated? Is the higher-than-normal table VPIP a result of a bunch of rocks and one gigantic fish with a 90-VPIP, or rather is it 5 or 6 slightly-loose players with VPIPs of 28 to 35?
- More importantly, where are the open seats at the table? I typically look for at least 3 fish at any table in order to consider it play-worthy, but I'll accept just two (or even one) if I can sit to the immediate left of a super-aggressive maniac. In those situations, I look for every opportunity to re-raise the maniac with marginal holdings like King-Jack, or a pair of sixes, and hopefully get it heads-up between the two of us.
- How big are the chip stacks of the fish? If they're down pretty low, that may be an indication that they won't be around anymore by the time my name comes up off the waiting list.
- Are the fish at the table passive or extremely aggressive? A 45-VPIP/7-PFR fish is a completely different animal than a 50/33. If the 50/33 is one of only 1 or 2 fish at the table, I'll typically only sit if I can get a seat to his left, whereas it's easier to exploit a the weaknesses of a more passive 45/7 type irrespective of position.
Those VPIP numbers will obviously differ at a short-handed table...at a 5 or 6-handed table, I typically look for average table VPIPs of above 38, although as before I'll accept a 35-37 if I can get good position on a maniac.
The preceding thoughts on table selection are ones that I have never actually put down in writing for any of the regular columns I have penned in various poker publications, mostly out of concern that I figured everyone knew all about it already. But I continue to be astounded by the number of high-stakes online players who ignore the preceding considerations entirely!
I will close with a brief anecdote from one of my private coaching sessions for a young man who had been a winner at the $5/$10 game, but had been having trouble moving up to $15/$30 and higher. I made my usual first request of new clients: I asked to watch him go through his usual table and seat selection routine. I observed as he happily took the first $20/$40 seat he came across, but then recognizing some of the opponents seated at that table said to me over his shoulder: "Uh-oh. I've played with a few of these guys before, and I think they're pretty good. This might be an ugly session."
Facing the screen, I don't think he caught the bewilderment that overcame me: it was as though he could not process the idea that not sitting with a group of skilled opponents was even an option.
I think I can confidently presume, however, that the analytically-oriented readership of this website will be a tad more discerning than my hapless client. Finding yourself a batch of below-average opponents, while it won't substitute for a solid technical foundation, will do wonders for your win-rate.
Samuel V.R. is a frequent contributor to PokerCroaker.com and a well-known and successful limit hold'em player. He can typically be found at the $30/$60 to $100/$200 games on Party, Stars, and PokerRoom. |
