Is reg avoidance more important than fish finding?

In tournaments, is it better to game select for avoiding good players than it is for finding weak players?

In tournaments, we can't follow a bad player around from table to table, so we have to make a broad assessment of the player population.

The biggest consideration of all is whether we want to weight our game selection to finding weak players, or avoiding very good ones.

In tournaments, I would strongly argue that reg avoidance is much more important.

Easier decisions when it matters the most

In practice, this means staying away from sites where stables run rampant, countries with sophisticated markets and no tax on poker, and if you are rich enough, tours like Triton.

The reason is that in tournaments, the field thins out and the better players emerge at the end.

Think of the World Series of Poker Main Event. At the start, there are probably two good regs at every table, and everyone else is quite weak.

However, at the end, it has flipped. Get to Day 5, and it is mostly tough regs in every seat.

In tournaments, the money is at the business end. Most of the weak players have gone, so it's much better to be fighting it out with mediocre regulars when you are making the biggest equity decisions. Even if the fish were fishier in a tournament with tough regulars in.

Avoiding good regulars means the tough decisions are much easier when the money is significant.

You can get Dara's free book on effective poker study by joining his mailing list.