Game Selection Is The Most Important Poker Decision

[shipitfish]

I am grateful to everyone who was kind enough to chime in with advice on my last post. You've given me a good deal to think about. In the meantime, in my own thinking, I have discovered a major factor that has had a substantial impact on my game recently. It's really the fundamental decision of poker: which game to play in.

I realized that I have a particular style of online game selection that is problematic. I sit, sometimes for up to 35-45 minutes, in games that I know are not "good games" (meaning, all the players appear to be reasonably tight-aggressive players with good starting hand selection) while waiting for a seat at a better game.

My thinking was always: "Well, I might as well play and make good use of the wait time". I am not convinced that it is "good use of my time". My time might be better spent either watching a game I'd hope to sit in, or (if I don't want to sit and watch a game I'm not playing in), doing something other than playing poker! While it's seductive to think that there's no harm in sitting in a tough game, there is, in fact, harm. You often only get action when you're beaten. You're wasting blinds. In short, your EV is negative, or at best, break even, no matter how you play in those games. The fundamental theorem of poker demands that you play in a game where you opponents make mistake. And, as Stewart Reuben wisely says, "poker is a game of mistakes, not forced errors".

Perhaps this concept is obvious to others. Part of this is what Shabbir is saying about my ego: "Oh, this is $2/$4 the competition can't be that tough". Well, like all things in poker, it depends. That could be Phil Ivey for I know sitting there killing time at $2/$4. Jennifer Harman says it's very relaxing for her to play low limit. How many online usernames does she have to relax with?

Shabbir is right that I have to check my ego about $1/$2 or $2/$4 being "easy to beat". I should take on Roy West's advice: "Assume every player you're up against is the world's best until you are given hard evidence to prove otherwise". I played last night with that attitude.

I was extremely careful with my game selection. It was easier on a Friday night, since there are more games and more good games. And I won. I played four tables of $2/$4 and $1/$2 for about four hours and cleared $100. That's only 1.5 BBs per hour per table, but it's a start.

roryk suggests there may be leaks in my game. I am sure there are a few, but I am not sure they are the death of me. I do think I've been too casual with my game selection. If there are big leaks, it may be that I don't take best advantage of good runs by continuing to play tight enough. I am beating the games; since I was staked when I started playing higher levels and I paid that whole stake back long ago. I still have cash left from those winnings in my bankroll (and was able to take out a couple of thousand for moving expenses). I am definitely a winning player. I may only be a marginally winning player, and time may be catching up with me. I'll have to go through and recompile my own records in to a proper format to find out. But, as I do, I'm determined to play my best game and make sure that I can continue to show wins.

Comments

[roryk.livejournal.com]

I think it is good to play in tough games sometimes. To beat games full of bad players you don't have to actually play well, you just have to not play bad. It can stunt your poker growth to only play in games with bad players. There are a new set of skills you have to learn to beat players who aren't bad, and farting around in a tough game sometimes is a good way to learn those new skills.

Roy West's advice doesn't make any sense. Most players suck, so you should assume an unknown player sucks until they prove otherwise. There is a very low percentage of 'world class players' but a much higher percentage of players who have no clue what they are doing, especially at the lower limits. So assume the opposite, that your opponent is a clown, until they show you they have some game.

Yes, you play good and probably beat the games. But you could play better both by having a better "A" game and spending less and less time playing your "C" game. We can always play better.

YES

[reddogace.livejournal.com]

YES! Game selection is by far the most important decision! It's the first thing I list in my 6 P's of Poker. Whenever I go to the woods (Foxwoods) I spend a good 10 minutes observing each table at the limit I'm going to play at. When I get seated I immediately ask for a table change until I end up at the table. I do this every time.

I have to attribute my recent success in the past couple years to two thoughts:
POKER IS A JOB - this is how I approach it, it takes concentration and can even give you a headache if you play too long. I don't drink at the table or mess around, I always pay attention.
POKER IS ONE LIFELONG SESSION - I try not to stay upset too long after a bad run, the good cards will come. Weeks of bad luck will be followed by weeks of good.

[saali2010.livejournal.com]

The variations take place from rules determined by venue in which the game played. Some of these variations let players swap their entire five card hand for new one during the second round. Whatever card trade-in rule, after last round of betting, the one with highest scoring five card hand declared the winner.

5 card stud (http://poker.winner.com/5_card_stud.html)