Picking a table at Stars

[Alon Ipser]

I'm kind of interested in what people look for when choosing a table.

1st thing I look for is the percentage of Plrs/Flop. I want something pretty high, usually over 50%.

2nd thing I look at is the stack sizes. In my opinion this is important. I usually look for a table where everyone is under the table max buy-in like in the pic below. I don't like tables where 2 or 3 players are over the max and as a rule, don't play them.

3rd thing is the Avg Pot. It's not realy important to me but I don't want something that is too small. The H/hr (hands per hour) means nothing to me when I choose a table.

I believe the table below is and ideal table. It would be nice if the Avg Pot was higher but its still OK. Also, I like that the big stack is from "****". shows he's immature and my guess is he bought in at $10 and is on his way down.

 

[zachvac]

What's your logic on not wanting big stacks? You think they'll be better players? Whether a stack is your size or a million bucks over your size, you play the same way.

 

[Tygran]

Actually I try and avoid tables with alot of short stacks on them. I also find virtually no difference between someone with say a full buy in or 3x the buy in. You are going to play both the same way pretty much.

I don't like alot of short stacks because short stacks often play a fold or shove preflop style and I don't like reducing poker to roulette.

 

[smjnc]

i dont mind a few big stacks then i kno they got the cash to pay me off.

 

[bubbasbestbabe]

I pick a table that has one really el gordo type of stack. He got this way by either playing extreme TAG play or extremeLAG play. Either way I set my sites on him and wait to take him down.

 

[Egon Towst]

1st thing I look for is the percentage of Plrs/Flop. I want something pretty high, usually over 50%.

I concur.

2nd thing I look at is the stack sizes. In my opinion this is important. I usually look for a table where everyone is under the table max buy-in like in the pic below. I don't like tables where 2 or 3 players are over the max and as a rule, don't play them.

Wouldn`t go that far, but I am wary of a table where one or more players have exceptional stacks, more than 2x the max buyin. I figure those guys are either very lucky or very strong players and, either way, I don`t need that.

one really el gordo type of stack.

Translation, please ?

 

[ChuckTs]

players/flop > avg pot size > big stacks at table

I look for big stacks because it usually means some maniac is throwing around a lot of money. It also means that I'll be getting a lot of maneuverability in terms of playing my position/bluffing as well as getting incredible implied odds for set mining and drawing.

Big stacks can also occasionally be on winner's tilt and be playing too loose with their stack which is always good, obviously.

 

[Irexes]

Actually I try and avoid tables with alot of short stacks on them. I also find virtually no difference between someone with say a full buy in or 3x the buy in. You are going to play both the same way pretty much.

I don't like alot of short stacks because short stacks often play a fold or shove preflop style and I don't like reducing poker to roulette.

Nonsense, he just looks for tables where I'm sitting with a chair to my left

 

[Alon Ipser]

What's your logic on not wanting big stacks? You think they'll be better players? Whether a stack is your size or a million bucks over your size, you play the same way.

A small stacked LAG player and a big stack TAG player, no, I don't play the same. I'm not saying that all the small stacks are LAG and the big stacks are TAG but it's a generalization until I get more info.

players/flop > avg pot size > big stacks at table

I look for big stacks because it usually means some maniac is throwing around a lot of money. It also means that I'll be getting a lot of maneuverability in terms of playing my position/bluffing as well as getting incredible implied odds for set mining and drawing.

Big stacks can also occasionally be on winner's tilt and be playing too loose with their stack which is always good, obviously.

Would you say this counts at the smaller limits as well as the limits you play at, Chuck?

 

[SavagePenguin]

I play 6 max $25 NL. Here's how I prioritize things:
#1 % seeing the flip
#2 average pot
#3 stack sizes

What I end up doing is arranging the tables by order of average pot size, so the big pots are at the top. Then I go down the list and put myself on the waiting list for the games with the largest % of people seeing the flop.

If I notice that the table is full of short stacks I skip it. When I bet $1.25 and make short stack shoves after I make a continuation bet (and I loooove to make continuation bets) then I have a tough decision to make. $2 more to win an $8 pot when I have two over cards? Hmmmm... My A/K over cards have the right odds if he has a pair, but there will be a lot of better opportunities later on so why gamble of a coin flip? But he might just be getting desperate and shoving with a lousy straight draw, or worse over cards. If he had more chips I'd figure he had something and could get away, but with a short stack you never know.

 

[ChuckTs]

Would you say this counts at the smaller limits as well as the limits you play at, Chuck?

Regarding avg pot size/plrs/flop %, most definitely - regarding the big stacks, it probably still applies but I'm not sure exactly how accurately.

I think the biggest things you should be paying attention to is pot size/players per flop, and that the stack sizes should factor in as a kind of secondary issue.