Different Table Atmospheres

[jwoodster]

What are the characteristics of a tight aggressive table and how does it differ from a losse aggressive table?

[Rykey101]

I would assume the answer is in tight aggressive you have less people going to the flop, with better hands, and not a whole lot of tricky plays. You should be more aggressive preflop and represent after with one or two bets against these players. Winning lots of smaller pots.

Loose aggressive is lots of people going to the flop with lots of betting with nothing or marginal hands. You sit and wait then bust them. Usually letting them win more of the smaller pots a long the way.(in NL)

Agree disagree ?

[Barton]

passive and agressive are measures of how much people raise
loose and tight are measures of how much people see the flop.

General consesus is loose/passive is the best game to be in and tight/aggressive is the worst. Tight/passive is actually very profitable if you adjust correctly to it but it's boooooooorrrrring. Loose agressive is great if they are all donkeys but if not stay away.

[jwoodster]

Barton is right with the definitions. The key is to have set diameters in order to define each table.

So we would like to have set figures for each definition:

1. So for loose/aggressive we would need what kind of #'s

PFR = % # of players(flop)=


2. Tight aggressive:

PFR= % #of players(flop)=

What other kind of table atmospheres are there?

[jwoodster]

I am thinking that somewhere between 7% - 10% should be the benchmark for pre flop aggression. any thoughts?

[Barton]

loose and tight are measures of how much people see the flop.



Actually I could say that better, it's not just seeing the flop. Loose players chase more, which is not neccessarily bad play. Most books talk about tight and loose by how many see the flop but I think it's more.

[riverrunner]

Personally I'm more a fan of paying attention to my relative position to types of players than the total table makeup in general.

Here is an example of what I mean:

I sit at a table and there are 3 players who see 50-60% of flops (A), and 2 players that see 15% of flops (B).

Put them like this:

A A A M B B and I'll make a fortune.

Put them like this:

B B M A A A and I might as well write a check to my favorite charity. I'll be pushing up-hill and out of position all night.

Put them like this:

A B M A B A and the money tends to spin around a bit on the table before settling in on any of us.

Same thing if you just have one wild cannon. Put him across the table from me, and it's a waste of time. By the time it gets to me, he's already been isolated and re-isolated and I'll find myself probably able to play like 10% of hands. Nudge me over a few seats and I'll play 28-35% in position with a better hand - which I find is a profitable gig.

[jwoodster]

Personally I'm more a fan of paying attention to my relative position to types of players than the total table makeup in general.

Here is an example of what I mean:

I sit at a table and there are 3 players who see 50-60% of flops (A), and 2 players that see 15% of flops (B).

Put them like this:

A A A M B B and I'll make a fortune.

Put them like this:

B B M A A A and I might as well write a check to my favorite charity. I'll be pushing up-hill and out of position all night.

Put them like this:

A B M A B A and the money tends to spin around a bit on the table before settling in on any of us.

Same thing if you just have one wild cannon. Put him across the table from me, and it's a waste of time. By the time it gets to me, he's already been isolated and re-isolated and I'll find myself probably able to play like 10% of hands. Nudge me over a few seats and I'll play 28-35% in position with a better hand - which I find is a profitable gig.

good points, so do you think there is any merit to having set criteria for table atmoshperes.

i am thinking in terms of poker tracker and evaluating how well you do at certain tables after the fact

[Barton]

Much of it is personal preference. Most players want to have the maniacs on their right so they can 3 bet and isolate them, I like that. Perhaps more important for me (at full tables) is having good players on my right and bad players on my left. When it gets shorthanded (like 4 players), I want to sit such that my blinds don't get picked on.

[jwoodster]

Much of it is personal preference. Most players want to have the maniacs on their right so they can 3 bet and isolate them, I like that. Perhaps more important for me (at full tables) is having good players on my right and bad players on my left. When it gets shorthanded (like 4 players), I want to sit such that my blinds don't get picked on.


yes exactly, i agree. So is there any merit or usefulness to classifying the whole table as one type for later analysis of your play?

[Barton]

I suppose it's useful in a general way, but it's more useful to have the individual players classified and your relative position to them. You don't always get complete freedom in seat choice so you have to be able to adjust to whatever seat you get. For example if you end up with the maniacs on your left give up on the raise and isolate game, go for the limp reraise megapot game.

[jwoodster]

I suppose it's useful in a general way, but it's more useful to have the individual players classified and your relative position to them. You don't always get complete freedom in seat choice so you have to be able to adjust to whatever seat you get. For example if you end up with the maniacs on your left give up on the raise and isolate game, go for the limp reraise megapot game.


i agree,

the one area that I think it would help is if you know what kind of table you are successful playing at, so on larger sites, when you are scouting for tables you can use poker traker to find a good table for you

[jwoodster]

Ok , so lets classify players by stats, doe sanyone have a player classification they would like to share

[surreyplayboy]

I don't know about classifying players but I do like to move seats, whenever I can to sit on the left of any Uber fish.

Being a prop, it is reasonably hard to table select well but it isn't too hard to make the best out of a current situation. Stand up and move, then come back in your new seat and type in the box, "dam disconnection" the fish or the 'mark' genrally wont get spooked, this is of course as long as the table is not full and breaks no prop rules.

[Barton]

Depends what you mean by fish. I would like to have position on everyone. But if I have to choose I would rather have position on good players.

[riverrunner]

Just curious about that Barton, since you play limit right?

I would think with good players on your right and bad on your left, the challenges I see are:
My blinds are hit upon more frequently
My ability to steal blinds is reduced somewhat
When I'm opening, I'm getting cold-called which invites the big blind in and I'm playing more multi-way pots out of position (usually sandwiched)

What are the advantages that you adjust to, since it would help me understand this better so I can make what I usually find an unpleasant situation better?

[Barton]

My blinds are hit upon more frequently
true and I don't like that
My ability to steal blinds is reduced somewhat
not really, if you are on their left you will be in early position when it is their blind so you wont be stealing much anyway
When I'm opening, I'm getting cold-called which invites the big blind in and I'm playing more multi-way pots out of position (usually sandwiched)
this is also true, but it helps keep me on good behavior and I can supress that maniac twin that takes over my mouse every so often:D

That's why I ask what you mean by "fish", I like the clueless maniac on my right so I can raise and isolate him, however good players on my left will see this and 3 bet me. I like to have players that behave rationally to my right, then I can make logical decisions based on what they do.

[riverrunner]

Thanks. Rational is always easier!

[surreyplayboy]

By fish I mean someone with a decent stack and no clue, loose passive, loose maniac, I dont care as I can adjust to them. But if a fish is happy to contribute his stack to me with top pair/any kicker, then I want him on my right as it will greatly offset the few times that a thinking player re-isolates.

That said, NL offers you the chance to stack someone in one hand so I guess the reasoning and dymanics are different to limit!

[Need2Poop]

in NL the best seat is decided by who is giving away their money. If there is only 1 player giving away money at the table, and the rest will play break even against eachother, over time the player to the left of the fish will earn the most money, and this amount will decrease the further you get away from him. The worst spot to be in is to have the button when the fish is SB. You will get to play ALOT against the other good players, and almost no pots against the fish alone, mostly multiwayspots, and mostly out of position.

IF noone is a donator and you need to make moves to win, the best seat is suddenly to the right of the tightest players. This way you will usually have position whenever you play a pot, and you will seldom get reraised or called by the player sitting behind you, making your choices very much easier.

[bcblack182]

in limit i try to get position on the best player at the table, because blind stealing is pretty much the main dynamic in shorthanded limit, and getting your blind raised every time by a really good player sucks.

At NL I don't care, the blinds are small anyways.

[gdoteof]

in NL the best seat is decided by who is giving away their money. If there is only 1 player giving away money at the table, and the rest will play break even against eachother, over time the player to the left of the fish will earn the most money, and this amount will decrease the further you get away from him. The worst spot to be in is to have the button when the fish is SB. You will get to play ALOT against the other good players, and almost no pots against the fish alone, mostly multiwayspots, and mostly out of position.

IF noone is a donator and you need to make moves to win, the best seat is suddenly to the right of the tightest players. This way you will usually have position whenever you play a pot, and you will seldom get reraised or called by the player sitting behind you, making your choices very much easier.

unless the fish is a maniac then its better to sit to his right. although variance goes up, if you know he is going to be betting way more often than he should be then being to his right gives you good relative position. (everyone needs to respond to his raise before you do)

[GottaFold]

I'm a bit less worried about where to sit in relation to the tight or loose players in the game. Wether you're in position or not, you can make adjustments to however they're playing and if he's a big fish you'll get his money one way or another.

I'm more concerned about sitting directly to the left of the biggest stack at the table. The deeper the stacks are, the more decisions you'll have to make when you play a hand. When you're getting a lot of your stack in before the flop or on the flop it just doesn't matter as much, but when you're deepstacked you're gonna have to make decisions about what to do on every street. This is when it's so much more important to be in position.