When do you leave a table?

T1real made a good thread about when to leave a table. I think the another question is when do you leave a bad table? You are playing the 2c/5c table and buy in for the $10. You get your AA and KK cracked by crap but now you are to $0. You have just been rivered or had runner/runner to knock you out. You know these are the types that you want calling. Do you rebuy? How many times before you realize that the seat is just cold?

I still have not learned this lesson well enough.

I won't re-buy - I will move to another table. I'll be damned if I am going to give the people at the table any more of my money if my cards are cold, I would like to spread my money around!! lol

I'll rebuy only once. If I lose that, then I know my cold streak of bad cards and bad luck will be longer than I thought. I save a lot of money this way.

I rebuy only once too. Usually I play at the 25/50 or 50/100 ring tables. exemple: When I win 120-130$, I loose 40-50$, and then I quit!

If I'm getting bad beats at a table that cost me my whole stack, that means that the opposition is putting their money in as a dog. This is good for me, so I'd stay and play as long as it took to get a profit out of them

If the opposition were players who were better than me, I'd leave immediately. With the BR i have, i can't afford to play at tables with players better than me who will drain my buy-in.

I didn't vote because it depends on the kind of players i'm against. Like i said - if their donkeys and i'm getting bad beat, i stay. If their better than me and are winning my entire buy-in, i leave.

It depends on the table, how big stakes I'm playing and if I start to play bad because I'm loosing. But at a good table (wich I usually find) lower than $100 buy-in I will allow myself to rebuy 2 times. After I loose the 3rd buy-in I will probably begin to tilt, so I stop playing there. With a buy-in of $100 I only allow 1 rebuy because loosing that much money affects me more.

me if i play on a 50c/$1 table i only buyin for the minimum say $20 and i tend to double up after a while then play from there. but if i lose it i rebuy the same amount if i lose that the i quit that table. this way im not losing the max buyin and i find it profitable. plus if im losin on 1 table then im usaually makin money on another table which keeps it balanced, as long as my bankroll is increasing it doesn't matter if u lose a bit. it will always happen.

its one common misconception in online poker that playing against fish is a good source of profit. this is probably the reason why so few players actually make a long term profit out of the game.

you cant really beat fish at a game they aren't playing. they dont think the same as you and therefore you cant read them. the premium card rule may squash them in the short term. but in the long term their rag pocket pair hitting a set is going to assassinate your AK after a big pre flop raise everytime.

therefore. if there are too many fish at a table i will leave after losing 30% of my buy in. its just not worth the risk getting a bad beat and losing my whole buy in. its much easier to make money out of tighter players.

its said that only 10% of online poker players make a profit. thats probably because the other 90% of poker players all think and play the same!

I think you are completely wrong.The fish may give you a lot of variance but it is A LOT more profitable to play against fish than it is to play against tight players. Even though the fish may sometimes make that miracle flop that kills your good hand, the money they loose by seeing to many flops, constantly getting in kicker trouble and stuff like that make up for it. As long as you don't try a lot of fancy moves on the fish, and you are capable of laying down TPTK and occasionally an overpair, they will be your biggest source of income.

I don't think that it's only 10% of online players that make money either. My poker tracker shows between 30% and 40% being winning players.

Errrr I stayed for 4 buy-ins against Mr Donk last night on Stars, down $100 but it was worth the effort. The most rigged session of poker ever, he bust KK i think 4 times with junk.

30% to 40% is financially impossible due to the profits poker sites make through rake. i read my statistics through a sponsorship company who work with different poker sites to track progress of their candidates for sponsorship.

your post basically sums up why i think it is hard to gain long term success from playing against fish.

their weak kicker problems is always likely to give them an unreadable 2 pair for instance and its fancy moves that brings in the majority of my earnings!

all i'm saying is, if you can read players - you can beat players. however if you cant read them, its gambling. reading people at online poker is very hard but it is possible. problem is, it becomes near impossible the lower down the stakes you go because plays are so unpredictable.

i was of the same thinking of you for a long time. i used to play common sense poker against fish and gradually make a nice profit. then blam a badbeat against a fish would take it all away. then i moved up levels and found badbeats weren't as bad because all players at higher levels play common sense poker - because of this. you can exploit it.

try it and see for yourself. goodluck at the tables guys!

i just offer an alternative [and in my experience very profitable] opinion!

No, my post basicly sums up why it's impossible not to win longterm.
If you can't beat them, it's because you are not adjusting enough to their way of playing.
If it was impossible to beat a fish, then he wouldn't be one! It's as simple as that. Bad plays, lead to loosing money, so if they're not loosing money, then they are not consistently making bad plays.
The hardest tables to make any money at are the rock tables where players are only exchanging blinds, but do you really think it's easier to make money on a table where people on average see 25% of the flops rather than 45%?

i find its easiest to make money on tables with a 30%-35% seeing flop ratio. there are too many calling machines and fish in the 45%-50% tables. its nice to have a balance of tight players and fish. calling machines are never good though!

I'm sorry, Allsopp but im right there along with Osmann...
Fish are what bring in the majority of profits IMO
As for calling machines being 'never good' ??
I'm sorry but their great for paying hands off...when you see them call down TPTK, you can safely bet your 2 pair or set or whatever into them and know they'll call you down. Obviously this is not a player to bluff.
It sounds to me like the point you're trying to get across is that you can't play good poker with fish, but only with experienced players. When you play fish, you have to bring your ABC game, and play a tight aggressive style to take advantage of their looseness. With complex players, you have more tools to work with, so you can open up your hand selection, and bring out the ol' bag of tricks.
Thats the thing...you don't play your complicated, tricky game - that won't work with donks. You stick to AK AA KK etc and you WILL profit. Sure you get bad beats...but "in the long term their rag pocket pair hitting a set is going to assassinate your AK after a big pre flop raise everytime."???
This is ridiculous...first off they obviously won't hit their set every time, and second when they do hit, if you can't read a fish hitting a set (probably the easiest tell out there) then i'm sorry, but you have very poor reading skills. Don't give implied odds to fish with TPTK.
Your short-term/long-term deal is completely backwards...its THEM who get caught in the long term because they do call raises with small PPs hoping to hit sets, when in reality it doesn't happen often enough to give them a long term profit. They win the short term BS pots, and we, the real players, win in the long term.

i dont think you can say i am wrong because its clear we are two very different players. i play a tournament style game in cash games with one major difference. i dont live and die by premium hands and i dont wait for them either. the foundation to any poker players game should be tight aggressive and so many people play like that, that you can counter it and beat it through changing gears regularly.

i like to switch my play depending on who i am in hands against. for example i wont play many pots with calling machines / fish because you just cant get them off hands and take down pots. whereas i will play alot more hands against tight aggressive [common sense] players because they are easy to get off hands and take down pots against.

ive played poker for a long time in many different mediums and it became clear to me that waiting for premium hands leads to trouble. because your are entering potentially massive action pots, you may win big but you can also lose big with them. therefore the swings in your bankroll are sufficiently damaging and can easily induce tilt [something i am a sucker for]

so rather than play textbook poker i switch it up and win lots of smalls pots to accumalate big results. the reason for this is, if i lose - i lose small but i dont win small because i win alot of pots. does that make sense or am i rambling?

so my theory of not making money out of fish is not standing up and saying it cant be done. i am just saying its very risky business that far too many players try to do. therefore i am an alternative player that has found a successful way to adapt tournament play to cash games.

i've learnt alot from undoubtedly one of the best cash game players in online poker connor "sealey" tate. read up about him, he plays a similar game to me and earns alot of money from it.

i am writing a book on adapting tournament play to cash games and it should be ready soon so i'll keep you guys posted!

good luck at the tables guys!

I won't re-buy - I will move to another table. I'll be damned if I am going to give the people at the table any more of my money if my cards are cold, I would like to spread my money around!!
<--- lol

I Leave and search another table.. if i lose my money there to... i go offline and watch tv