Fast vs Normal speed tables

    • cyzo
      cyzo
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.07.2008 Posts: 117
      Lately, I have been playing on fast tables only. Do you think that this is a bad decision? Unless the fishier competition is normally at fast tables, I would be missing out on that which is at normal speed tables. I'm not sure if the increased hands/hour would justify it. I play on pokerstars, so there is plenty of traffic on both - I can find all the full fr tables with well-sized average pots that I need when looking at fast tables only, but I am sure that some normal speed tables would better meet my criteria. Also, I have been earning slightly less VPPs/100 hands than what is reported on the PokerStars forums for NL50. Could this be a result of me not playing normal speed tables?

      Please comment on the difference between these two tables speeds and their selections' possible effects of BB/100 and BB/hour.
  • 8 replies
    • kingdippy2008
      kingdippy2008
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.08.2008 Posts: 2,107
      Originally posted by cyzo
      Lately, I have been playing on fast tables only. Do you think that this is a bad decision? Unless the fishier competition is normally at fast tables, I would be missing out on that which is at normal speed tables. I'm not sure if the increased hands/hour would justify it. I play on pokerstars, so there is plenty of traffic on both - I can find all the full fr tables with well-sized average pots that I need when looking at fast tables only, but I am sure that some normal speed tables would better meet my criteria. Also, I have been earning slightly less VPPs/100 hands than what is reported on the PokerStars forums for NL50. Could this be a result of me not playing normal speed tables?

      Please comment on the difference between these two tables speeds and their selections' possible effects of BB/100 and BB/hour.
      Hi!

      Well i cant comment on the difference bb/100 or bb/hour but imo the pace of the table will not matter. I wouldnt just play one type of table, i would just pick what you think the fishiest tables are ;)

      There are 2 ways of looking at fast tables.

      -They could attract more fish because they want to be able to play more hands in 1 hour or a certain amount of time.

      -They could attract more grinders because more hands/hour will generally = more points/hour ;)

      However it might not matter. I dont think fish or grinders really look for a certain type of table so i would just pick the fishiest tables you can find :)

      Regards,

      -Jack
    • TheBrood
      TheBrood
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.07.2008 Posts: 4,383
      I would recommend the fast tables if you have no problem making fast quick decisions. I tried them once or twice but was making rushed decisions and timing out so I stay away from them for now.
    • cyzo
      cyzo
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.07.2008 Posts: 117
      Do you think I am losing profit by doing this? I tried normal speed tables today, but all the stupid posting blinds and not having a sit-out next blind button along with the inclusion of pot-limit tables makes it much more tedious than playing fast tables.
    • Tim64
      Tim64
      Black
      Joined: 02.11.2008 Posts: 7,401
      Well, personally I would say at least half of my profit comes from unexpected situations arrising against total fish. When these occur, like I'm BB and flop 2 pair or set vs fish who can't let go of his middle pair, I really like to have the time to think about how to extract the most amount of money from the situ'n. I'm not so quick on my feet, so I'd find myself rushed by the speed tables.

      The other point is that, in general, I see more SSS players on speed tables. This makes sense to me since if I were a bss player I'd really want the extra time before deciding whether to ship in 100BB in a tricky spot.
      SSS is much simpler so most decisions can be made in the shorter amount of time.

      (which says a lot about how slow my brain works, since I play SSS and STILL need the extra time to think. What a snail... :)

      GLATT
    • cyzo
      cyzo
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.07.2008 Posts: 117
      I 24 table and never time out, so fast tables are a good way for me to increase my hands/hour to ~1.5k since PokerStars puts a max on the number of cash game tables you can play at a time. I am just starting to move to NL100, so I kind of have to play on both normal and fast tables. No way am I waiting on a list. My table selection might be suffering, though, I fear.
    • TTT241
      TTT241
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.09.2008 Posts: 452
      Hi!

      Just for my curiosity? What is your winrate? I see significant drop in my game and winrate if I increse number of (FL) SH tables from 4 to 6?

      Regards

      TTT
    • Schnitzelfisch
      Schnitzelfisch
      Bronze
      Joined: 08.11.2008 Posts: 4,952
      Originally posted by TTT241
      Hi!

      Just for my curiosity? What is your winrate? I see significant drop in my game and winrate if I increse number of (FL) SH tables from 4 to 6?

      Regards

      TTT
      That's cause FL is harder than NL ;) .
    • cyzo
      cyzo
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.07.2008 Posts: 117
      Originally posted by TTT241
      Hi!

      Just for my curiosity? What is your winrate? I see significant drop in my game and winrate if I increse number of (FL) SH tables from 4 to 6?

      Regards

      TTT
      I recently had a downswing, but it is now 2.73bb/100 (~40k hands). I play an average of about 1.3k hands per hour (I play NL100). I have actually been considering trying FL, but TableNinja does most of my betsizing for me, making the considerably harder NL :s_biggrin: a bit more managable.

      The rakeback 24 tabling NL100 is almost $15.00/hour, but I am really just trying to improve my winrate currently by improving my play.