For years, savvy poker players have known that game selection is one of the crucial – perhaps most crucial – components of being a winning poker player. It really doesn’t matter how good a poker player you are; it only matters how good you are compared to the people against whom you’re playing.

Back in the 80’s, there was an extremely good poker player in Las Vegas, of whom it was often said, “The guy is the ninth best seven-stud player in the world; his problem is that he’s always playing against the eighth best.” As the story went, all this fellow had to do was avoid those eight players and he stood to win a lot of money. His problem was that for various reasons he continually found himself up against those few players who were better than he was.

This is not the problem that most of us face – particularly in the online world. There are thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of players better than we are at our preferred game. But the good news is that there are maybe hundreds of thousands of players less skilled than we are. It’s simply a question of getting into, and staying in, games against the latter group.

Obviously, it’s important to select stakes that are appropriate not only to your bankroll, but your skill too. Suppose you are a billionaire, for whom no mortal poker game can present true financial concern. If winning matters to you (and why would you play poker if it didn’t?), then you should probably avoid the very largest games. Andy Beal certainly realized that he was out of his league against the Doyle Brunson-led consortium. Beal’s plan was to move his opponents out of their comfort zone by the sheer number of zeros in the bets. It almost worked; the emphasis on almost.

Anyway, let’s suppose that you are not a billionaire, but are indeed a master of game selection and have learned to spot +EV opportunities (and -EV situations) with amazing clarity. There is another layer of this problem that you need to consider as well:

Should you, the moment you detect a -EV situation, abandon the game? This is particularly important in the online world, where you can join and leave games pretty much at will.

In thinking about this, it’s worth asking (hypothetically, at least) Doyle Brunson, Barry Greenstein, Jennifer Harman, and people like them. These are folks who for years made their living off of rich donors. Do you suppose that if that rich donor excused himself to go to dinner that they’d all immediately jump up and cash out? No, and there are two really good reasons for that:

1. It wouldn’t be too long before Richard Donor noticed that the game formed and broke around him. Few of us want to believe that we’re the mark in any situation. And remember that Mr. Donor had enough money to play in the Big Game in the first place; he probably required some (if not a lot of) smarts to attain that status. After a while, he might decide that these people didn’t respect him and he’d take his money elsewhere. Chip Reese (RIP) was a master of being friendly to the donors – even to the point that they’d go to his house for private games. These top players know that they’re in the customer service business and that game selection often has a meta-game component.

2. A second (perhaps even unknown) donor might walk through the door looking for action. If the game’s not going, that person is going to turn on his heel and walk out again.

Obviously the situation online is greatly different. Games form, break, and reform at the speed of light. But the principal is the same: while it is crucially important to select games where you are a favorite, don’t forget the meta-game component. It may be better to stay in a game where you are a slight dog if that will allow a seriously +EV situation to develop down the road.

This is particularly important if you play in games that are not so widely spread that there are always a few dozen from which to choose. Even if you don’t enjoy playing short-handed, seriously consider sticking it out for awhile when the game drops to 3-4 players. That 3-4 number is right on the cusp; you need just one more player to sit down. At that point, the flood gates will open and you’ll be back to a full table before you know it. Had you clicked “Sit out,” the game would have broken.

Similarly, suppose you’re at a full table and the obvious fish busts out or leaves. Often you’ll hear somebody say, “Party over” or words to that effect and suddenly the table clears. First, don’t be one of the people making that comment. The donor may still be watching the table or have a friend at the table who reports the chat to him. That’s rude and needlessly hurtful. Second, think about sticking around a while. The donor may come back after licking his wounds for a bit. Or maybe another weak player will sit down.

The point here is that sometimes you have to consider the long-term effects of your actions, even when it comes to game selection. Don’t be so focused on right-now EV that you lose sight of the big picture.

Lee Jonesis the cardroom manager of Cake Pokerand has been in the online poker business since 2003. He is also the author of Winning Low Limit Hold’em, which is in its 15th year of publication.

More Articles by Lee Jones

The Book That Needs To Be Written Mar 24, 2010

Don't Fear Chinese Gold Farmers Dec 21, 2009

Thoughts from the 2009 WSOP Final Table Nov 23, 2009

Home Games are Better Than Casino Games Nov 07, 2009

Pretend It's a Bank Sep 14, 2009

This, Too, Shall Pass Aug 27, 2009

The Arc of a Home Game Jul 14, 2009

Getting What You Want from an Online Poker Site Jun 21, 2009

Lee Jones Podcast – May 21, 2009