I seem to have the most success at a table when everyone has at least 1/2 the buy-in. I hate playing tables with 3 or 4 short stacks that randomly push all in with any 2. It ruins your implied odds for lots of hands and if you get a big hand against one of them you don't win much.

Other than that, I always like a juicy table with a high avg. pot and high flop %. I find that usually the requirement above will fulfill these two.

I will say that I tend to avoid tables with 3 or more players with 150% or more of max buy-in. My logic is that table momentum is already set and i'm walking into la-machine.

If I saw a table like that I would be all over it like Felonius_Monk on TightWad's mom.

I find when players are up a bit, they let some of their profit go a little easier.

On party poker I just look for the largest avg pot. In the $25 buy in games anything over $25 abg pot is going to be a good table. I have found that often the players with 3x the buy in are often the fish, this is not always true but a good percetage of the time it is true,

see! this is why i ask.
i might want to rethink my logic.

When you see a couple big stacks at the table, you need to wacth them carefully. If you see them make a couple stupid moves (even if they win) then they are probably fish and you need to target them with oversized bets and things lke that.

If they appear to be playing tight and solid, then avoid them without a very good hand.

I tend to look for the "larger" avg pot rather than just the largest. I will jump iont the largest couple of tables if they look solid, but often a couple of fish just got cleaned out and I get thier seats when the bust out. I like tables over $10 for $25NL $12-$14 seems ideal to me. I like a couple of big stacks at the table. They have the money I want and are very often fish who hit a couple of big sucks outs.

I watch for an orbit or two and play cautiously for a couple more orbits until I figure out who is who. If the VP$IP is less than 25%, I usually leave. IMO, 35-40% is ideal, but anything over 30% is pretty good. The excpetion is if I find very passive players. In that case, I will stick around and bully the table for a while.

If I have a real maniac, I just wait on good hands and play uber agressive back to him. He will stack off pretty quick trying to "prove" he is the big dog. Nothing better than a maniac on tilt. Just make sure you have solid cards. Even maniacs get good cards sometimes.

Note: You will lose big to a maniac from time-to-time, fi you can avoid tilt, buy back in and and keep playing. He will pay you eventually. TAG always wins against maniacs "over time".

I've always advocated this. I take the complete opposite approach to everyone here and it does me well. Low pot sizes + low Avg. players/flop = weak tight tables.

This basically means you can pick up small pots until you get a chance to play a big pot. You make a pot-sized raise preflop, hope that 1 or max 2 people come along for the ride. The flop comes something like 9 high, they both check to you, then you bet in the 3/4 pot region. Easy money. Why get plugged into these big pots when people that have no business being in the pot ie. any 2 suited cards, keep calling your big bets then suck you out on the end with a runner runner flush?
I frankly get so sick of bad play after bad play, that I just avoid it. That doesn't mean there won't be fish on small tables though, just look for stack sizes.

In my opinion, you don't necessarily want to play a table full of fish, you want to play people that are "almost good" players. Think about that one....

I have thought about that one and I have decided that I make much more money winning fewer, but bigger pots against LP's and LAG's than winning a lot of tiny pots against TP's. However, your way is probably less variance.

hmmmmm
much to think upon.