Chasing the Maniacs; or: How I Learned to Stopped Worrying and Love Variance

I've geen trying a new approach to game selection for the past couple of days that (knock on wood) seems to be working. The method came from a post that one of the better players/posters on FTR forums made when talking about edge. The player said he always has found the fishiest games to be the ones that have the largest "Avg Pot" for the stakes he plays at.

I have previously read (and have used) the theory that the highest "Plr/Flp" number was the best criteria for fishy games. Based on my last few months experience, however, I'm not so sure it works as well as it should. So when I read that Avg Pot works well for an FTR semi-pro, I decided to give it a try for myself. So far, I've played a dozen or so sessions using this method (~750 hands) in limits ranging from $.25/50 to $3/6 (yes, I've bug-tilted a bit, but to be honest the vast majority of these hands were at $1/2 6max, where I have found I can do fairly well if I play my A-game).

The chart, above, gives an indication of how this system of table selection works for me... at least given the small data sample size of my past few days. In almost all cases, the games I got into had at least one (if not two or three) REALLY loose players that seemed to just want to gamble. I loosened up my VPIP a little against these players, so that I could outplay them post-flop more frequently (i.e., if I hit the flop, I'd punish them; if I missed the flop, I'd bail-- yes, my post-flop tactics against maniacs really is that simple....)

Table selection is a hugely important part of winning poker, but most of us (your's truly included) tend to give it little attention or thought. We (I) tend to just jump into whatever game is open at the limit we (I) want to play at, and then hope the cards come. More often than not, I use the Plr/Flp number as my selection criteria, but not in any real consistent or coherent manner. To return to my winning ways, I really need to start being more selective and trying to find games that I can exploit more efficiently; Avg Pot seems to be working so far.

The downside of Avg Pot, however, seems to be more variance in the game. I've had a couple of -$40 downswings, one big one of -$50, and a bunch of -$20 drops along the way. I guess that's just the nature of playing with maniacs; i.e., occasionally they're going to hit big against you. The secret is riding those swings out and just going with the flow and betting hard when you hit anything semi-strong. Whenever I lost a big pot, I asked myself, "did I play that hand optimally?" If the answer was "yes," then I tried to just accept the hit as part of That's Poker.

In other news, I'm heading over the Guru's house tomorrow morning for a couple hours of high(er) stakes poker played on his dime. Should be fun, especially if we game select using Avg Pot.

All-in for now...

-Bug

PS. After rereading this post prior to hitting the Publish Post button, I realized that the difference between the Avg Pot method of game selection and the Plr/Flp method is probably the following: Avg Pot results in more maniac-type opp, while Plr/Flp results in loose/passive play. Depending upon which type of opp you're up against, the post-flop tactics need to change dramatically. Weak-tight players tend to call down with decent hands, whilst maniacs are much more likely to bluff on each street. Your hand selection (and flop fold criteria) needs to adjust accordingly.