In all of my time playing poker, I've found that most successful players tend to fall into one of two categories. One category is the player who always attempts to be the table captain. This player attempts to constantly bend the will of everyone at the table to conform to his game or suffer the consequences. Typically, this player is aggressive and enjoys the fact that the other players at the table have to basically play their game with him. I realize that this sounds kind of negative, but it really isn't. Some of the best players I know are table captains. They have a presence at the table that often commands respect and yields results.
There is also a second set of successful players, and this is more my camp. This set is not necessarily better or worse than the first set, just different stylistically. These players let the situation dictate their table persona rather than forcing the table to bend to their will. This style basically revolves around assessing the players at the table and then adapting your game to best suit the situation with which you are presented. For example, if you are at a table where everyone is superaggressive, you simply sit back and pick your spots to selectively play back at them, knowing that their overaggressiveness will eventually pay you off when they overplay a hand against you. Conversely, if the table is superpassive, you can put on your table captain hat and start raising a lot and running the table.
I mention these styles so that everyone knows where I'm coming from. Every player is different, and has a style that works for him. One of my biggest strengths is recognizing different table situations and quickly adapting my game to exploit the current table of opponents I'm facing. With that in mind, I'd like to discuss some different table situations I encountered while I was playing the
World Series of Poker Tournament Circuit event in New Orleans.
I'm using the New Orleans event because it was very unique, in that I had several extremes sitting at my table. I was in the No. 6 seat to start the tournament. There was a nice lady in the No. 5 seat to my right, who was probably an intermediate-level player. She had the basics down very well, but the one hole I noticed immediately was that she always bet if you showed any weakness whatsoever, even if the preflop action indicated that you might be slow-playing a monster. Seats No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 had styles similar to each other; all were relatively tight-aggressive and capable of occasionally making a big play, but they generally bet and raised for value and folded when they missed.
That brings us to the No. 1 and No. 10 seats. These players were very unique, in that they constantly overbet the pot with mediocre holdings. I saw them both consistently bet three or four times the size of the pot on the flop with top pair, weak kicker. The No. 7, No. 8, and No. 9 seats were all older gentlemen who played a very weak-passive style. They called a lot preflop, and generally called post-flop if they had something and folded if they didn't. They rarely showed aggression unless they had very good hands.
So, how do we adapt our game to fit this table? The biggest holes at this table were the No. 1 and No. 10 seats. Their consistency in overbetting the pot meant that if I could see lots of cheap flops against them, all I had to do was hit one hand and I'd be guaranteed to rake a huge pot. So, anytime I could get involved with these players with a holding that stood a reasonable chance of hitting a flop cheaply, I took it. I didn't want to pay a lot to see flops with these players preflop, but knowing the potential post-flop payoff, I was calling them with hands with which I wouldn't call a lot of players, like 6-5 offsuit and even stuff like 10-7 suited, because I knew that I had to hit just one concealed hand against them to double up. I approached the No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 players fairly cautiously. I knew that being tight-aggressive players, they would often have good starting hands that they would play aggressively. I mainly tried to stay out of their way if the No. 1 and No. 10 seats weren't also involved in the pot. The No. 5 seat was the kind of player against whom I was best off betting when I missed and checking when I hit, because she would consistently bet to weakness. Against the No. 7-No. 9 seats, I generally just tried to steal their blinds on the rare occasions that it was folded to me in late position and I could isolate them.
So, as you can see, I wore many different hats at this table. When I could isolate the No. 7-No. 9 seats, I was almost like the table captain. Against the No. 1 and No. 10 seats, I was a weak calling station, just waiting for a hand. Against the No. 2-No. 4 seats, I was tight-aggressive and generally avoided big conflicts, and I was a slow-player and a bluffer against the No. 5 seat. Unfortunately, my results weren't that great in New Orleans, but the table situation was a bit unique, and I thought I'd share my thought process on how I adapted my game to fit it. As I write this, I'm getting ready to start playing in the
World Series of Poker, and I hope I'll see a lot of you in Las Vegas this year. It's truly a unique experience, and I wish everyone the best of luck.
