Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.

[bisonbison]

There have been a few threads lately wanting to compare levels and sites and such (is Party 1/2 better than Paradise 2/4 than UB .25/.50 blah blah blah), so I thought I'd sum up my thinking on this stuff.

There's no single index or stat that says "this site is good," "this level is good," or "this table is good." Yet the value of any level or site or game can be deduced and compared by studying that thing that gets mentioned in every single goddamn hold'em book ever: position.

Absolute Position

One of the things you learn about hold'em before you actually grasp any real part of the game is that position matters: it's good to be in late position, the button's best, it's worst to act first. The reasons are pretty easy to get: acting later means you know more and in a game of limited information, knowing more allows for better decisions and more sklansky bucks (malmuth money).

"Alright," we say, "I get it, I like the button. I like to act last." But every poker book you read brings it up again: position is really important. No. REALLY IMPORTANT. In fact, it may be the most important thing in the world. It's the difference between light and dark, between good and evil, between holding hands and heavy petting...

You're convinced that you get the idea, so every time the button makes its circumnavigation of the felt, you feel a smile coming on, a slight loosening of the loins, the bowels, and the hand selection criteria, and you think "this is what they're on about; I get to play 65 soooted cause I know I got the limpers for it and I have the button and dear god I'm gonna make them pay." It's fine living, this button living; it treats a man good.

Position is the key to getting your money in when you have the best of it, but what isn't immediately clear as you're learning the game, and what may not have been made quite explicit enough in the dozen-plus books I have on my poker shelf, is that you have control over your position in every game you play.

Relative Position

If you've read enough 2+2 books, you've probably been successfully bored to tears by the explanation of self-weighting and non-self-weighting betting patterns. I happen to find these terms counter-intuitive and opaque and obtuse and what have you, but suffice it to say that self-weighting betting is zombie betting (never taking circumstances into account), and non-self-weighting betting is smart betting, getting your bets in when circumstances make the getting good.

So what circumstances are you looking for in Hold'em? You make money when other players make mistakes, so you want to be in as many hands as possible with players who make a lot of mistakes. How do you know when a bad player will be in a hand? By sitting on his left. At a ten-handed table, you act after your right-hand neighbor 90% of the time. Nine times out of ten, when you're evaluating a preflop play with a marginal hand, you know whether you'll have this donator to take money from. Your relative position is a big advantage. If you were sitting on his right, you'd never know if he was coming in or not. This advantage holds to a lesser degree for the players two or three or four seats away.

The same line of thinking shows why it pays to have tighter players on your left. Let's say you're in the CO. The button, your left-hand opponent, plays 20% of his hands. That means 80% of the time when you're in the CO, you're actually the button. Now, you don't get to know when you'll be the button, and you'll only be playing a small fraction of your hands as well, but over time, a tight left-hand opponent means you get to be the button almost twice as often. If you're two off the button with two tight players acting after you, you get the button for free more than 50% of the time.

Those two tight players following you means that you're the button more than twice each orbit. You can have that absolute position for free, and you can help ensure it through late position aggression, since tight players are more likely to fold their playable hands to raises.

Profitable Games and Levels and Sites

A great seat is one where you can expect to regularly have position on bad players, and a great game is nothing but a great seat that lasts. Obviously, the more bad players at a table, the better your chances of profit, but in today's world of telegraphs and airships and multi-tabling TAGs, you can win just by finding one or two profoundly unskilled players and sitting to their left. One 100 watt bulb of bad play, and a couple of 40 watt mediocrities are more than enough to light your way to fame and fortune.

So when we're comparing Party 3/6 to Paradise 2/4 to the 20 game at the Fox, the average wattage counts, but the more important question is: are there enough bad players in the games? With enough bad players, you can pick and choose your tables, and your seats at those tables, and can maximize your opportunities to win bets. That's it. There's no secret formula that makes Party Poker more profitable for you than Paradise Poker or Party 2/4 more profitable than Party 3/6, just one central theme: are there enough unskilled players, can I identify them, and can I sit by them and touch their arms reassuringly while they push their money my way?

And let me make this clear: one or two bad players is all it takes. There's no reason why you can't beat a good UB 15/30 table for more BB/100 than a bad Party 2/4 table. All that matters is your willingness to scout your opponents, identify opportunities, and take them.

All the limits are potentially profitable. Not all the time, and not every table, but if you define yourself as a 2/4 player, who only plays Party 2/4, you will miss the juicy 1/2 tables, and 3/6 tables and Paradise 2/4 tables where bad players are waiting for you to take their money.

[Madtown]

I saw where you were going with the discussion on relative position immediately and it's an excellent and understressed point. It's also why I wish sites had a "seat change" option. There've been many a time when I've wanted to move to the left of a loose player or to the right of the other table TAGs.

I do a bad job of table scouting so I sometimes end up at bad PP 2/4 tables, but once I sit down I do a good job of keeping an eye on the table and will frequently move once it becomes apparent that there are 3 other TAGs, or the table VPIP drops real low. This is a more important piece of playing poker than most people realize.

[Redeye]

Great post. I think this is one of the things that I have really neglected in my online play. I don't think I worry enough about my relative position and often find myself at tables with TAGs directly to my right making it miserable for me to play unless I am getting a really nice run of cards.



[ QUOTE ]
felt, you feel a smile coming on, a slight loosening of the loins, the bowels, and the hand selection criteria, and you think "this is what they're on about

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean you take a poop everytime the button comes around to you, or perhaps just a momentary release? /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
It's also why I wish sites had a "seat change" option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree. I have no idea why this hasn't been added yet.

[Fnord]

One additional point worth mentioning is that by having a somewhat bad player that respects pre-flop raises a little on your left, our TAgg pre-flop raises often drive out the very player we want in the pot with our best hands.

There have been a lot of times I've walked away from games where the table was backwards...

[bisonbison]

I think a seat change option would make unskilled players less comfortable if they see that everyone wants to sit next to them. At a B&M room, you can just pretend you don't like the cut of your neighbor's gib.

[Fnord]

[ QUOTE ]

Completely agree. I have no idea why this hasn't been added yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it gives an edge to good players who understand position. It's in the best interest of the site to control the flow of money from bad players to good players.

Why do you think on Party...

o The ante is so high in Stud games?
o The NL/PL games have a capped buy-in at 50x the BB?
o The 15/30 game has a 2/3 blind structure?

[MaxPower]

Very good post.

[Octopus]

[ QUOTE ]
A great seat is one where you can expect to regularly have position on bad players, and a great game is nothing but a great seat that lasts. ... One 100 watt bulb of bad play, and a couple of 40 watt mediocrities are more than enough to light your way to fame and fortune.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone repeat this ten times every time you log on. When I realized this, playing became (even) more fun.

(BTW, thanks again bison.)

[AdamL]

Hehe, definitely /images/graemlins/smile.gif This might be filed in the same space as "Only three 30/60 tables" as far as Party policy goes.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
The button, your left-hand opponent, plays 20% of his hands. That means 80% of the time when you're in the CO, you're actually the button.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beautiful. I always knew about wanting the tight players to your left so you could raise them out, but never thought about how it buys you extra buttons.

Thanks again, Bison, for an eye-opening post.

[Knoler]

Excellent post. I've been noticing the great impact of some of these things lately as I've been wading through the wilderness of 1/2 full as well as beginning to dabble in 2/4. This post really helped clarify those ideas.

[ QUOTE ]
It's also why I wish sites had a "seat change" option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a tip for the Party folk. If you're at a table and the seat you want opens up, and there aren't any people on the waiting list, you *can* change seats.

If you get up from the table and then go back to the same table, the Party server will put you back in your old chair, like the monkey you are. But, if you leave the table and open *any other table* then quickly close it and go back to your table, you can take any seat you want.

This has only come in handy for me a couple of times, since there are usually waiting lists. But, there it is, if it helps you out...

Regards,
-Brian

[frank_iii]

Great post, but there's no good way that I can see to deliberately sit to the left of the unskilled players. The best/better tables at night all have relatively long waiting lists and, when I finally get a seat, I'm usually just happy enough to be there. Do others select 'Take me off the list' then just get back on the list after the undesirable seat has been filled?

[cpk]

So what circumstances are you looking for in Hold'em? You make money when other players make mistakes, so you want to be in as many hands as possible with players who make a lot of mistakes. How do you know when a bad player will be in a hand? By sitting on his left. At a ten-handed table, you act after your right-hand neighbor 90% of the time. Nine times out of ten, when you're evaluating a preflop play with a marginal hand, you know whether you'll have this donator to take money from. Your relative position is a big advantage. If you were sitting on his right, you'd never know if he was coming in or not. This advantage holds to a lesser degree for the players two or three or four seats away.

This is wrong. You already know whether or not a bad player will be in a hand--well, they're in the game, aren't they? Further, your most profitable situations are when several LP-Ps limp in and you can raise on the button or cutoff with a hand that is normally marginal (eg, A7s). By definition, you are on everyone's relative left when you're on the button except for the two blinds--and if you know they're loose and weak, you know that jacking up their blinds will only invite them in, and you have position on every subsequent round.

What I'm saying is that for loose, weak players, position does not matter. You know that they will not raise, so you can limp in up front with weaker hands. You will have position on the button anyway, and the blinds will call a raise.

You're even more wrong about putting TA-As to your left. Say you're in a game with 8 fish and 1 TA-A. If the TA-A is to your immediate left, you will have to fold hands like 33, A7s, and the like that you could easily play if he were not sitting there. To me, this is a much bigger disadvantage that massively outweighs getting the button more often. I'm not terribly concerned if a loose, weak player who rarely gives action sits behind me on the button when I'm in the cutoff. I am a lot more concerned about having to muck JTs because I worry about getting isolated by an 18/8 who raises just often enough to keep me guessing.

Further, it is far more important to play tighter when a tougher player is in the pot than it is to play looser when a weak player is in the pot. The reason is that in the latter instance you can end up costing yourself a lot of money with little to be gained. And, besides, putting the TAPs to your left is not how to make your marginal hands more profitable in early position! Finally, if you sit on the toughest player's immediate left, you will not even have to worry about blind defense--I'm not usually concerned about tough players stealing my small blind (especially in 3/6 or 5/10, where the SB is rarely worth playing even in an unraised pot).

I think you make a couple of interesting points, but you're emphasizing the wrong variables. It's a lot worse to get raised by the TAP to your left with a marginal hand than to safely limp in or raise after the TAPs have folded and get no play.

[cpk]

How can a TAG (most all LL TAGs have PFR < 10) who is involved less than 20% of the time make life "miserable" for you. At least 2/3 of the time you'll not be in a hand with them. More than seven times out of ten they won't even be raising when you want to play.

I'll tell you what makes me miserable: Limping in with JTs only to get isolated by an aggressive player with AJ. And now, I'm out of position. That's a serious drag.

Again, why do I need position post-flop against people who rarely bet and never raise?

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
It's also why I wish sites had a "seat change" option.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% agreed.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a seat change option would make unskilled players less comfortable if they see that everyone wants to sit next to them. At a B&M room, you can just pretend you don't like the cut of your neighbor's gib.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary; I almost can't imagine doing this live. It would seem awkward to me.

Online, I doubt many fish would even notice.

[cpk]

I think if seat changes were limited and prioritized it could work.

In a B&M setting, I usually move to only an end seat with the proper positional advantages over others. Because most players understand why end seats have inherent value, even tough players will not get suspicious as to why I just moved to their left.

I like end seats, anyway, simply because I can see the entire table without turning my head. This allows me to receive the most tells while leaking the fewest tells.

[bisonbison]

This is wrong.

No. No, it's right.

You already know whether or not a bad player will be in a hand--well, they're in the game, aren't they?

I'm talking about an actual game here, the type that takes place at small stakes tables at the various online sites. Most of the loose players I'm talking about at 3/6 aren't 80% loose or 60% loose. They're 40% loose.

Further, your most profitable situations are when several LP-Ps limp in and you can raise on the button or cutoff with a hand that is normally marginal (eg, A7s).

You're overstating your case. My most profitable hands are hands I would play in any case: AA, KK, AKs, AK, QQ... The marginal hands I am describing are things like 33 in MP. If you have loose players in front of you, they are more likely to limp, allowing you to limp with greater confidence that you'll have the necessary implied odds to hit your set.

and if you know they're loose and weak, you know that jacking up their blinds will only invite them in, and you have position on every subsequent round.

Do you actually play poker? You do realize that any player in the world is more likely to call in an unraised pot than in a raised one?

What I'm saying is that for loose, weak players, position does not matter.

Wrong.

You know that they will not raise, so you can limp in up front with weaker hands.

Wrong. They will raise, they will just raise less often than more aggressive opponents. I am talking about actual situations that occur in games.

You will have position on the button anyway, and the blinds will call a raise.

Gibberish.

If the TA-A is to your immediate left, you will have to fold hands like 33, A7s, and the like that you could easily play if he were not sitting there.

No. Say our TA-A friend plays 15% of his hands. He could only effect your play on 15% of your hands, and he's only going to raise half the time when he does play.

I am a lot more concerned about having to muck JTs because I worry about getting isolated by an 18/8 who raises just often enough to keep me guessing.

See, you don't get isolated as often when you have loose players in front of you, because they're loose, and you are not alone and therefore can't be isolated. See how that works?

Further, it is far more important to play tighter when a tougher player is in the pot than it is to play looser when a weak player is in the pot.

Sure, but if you both play 20% of your hands, how often are you two going to overlap? 4% of the time.

And, besides, putting the TAPs to your left is not how to make your marginal hands more profitable in early position!

It's not all about EP. Besides, only once do you act first preflop. If you've got a 40% loose in front of you, overlimping when he limps will very often create a multiway pot.

I'm not usually concerned about tough players stealing my small blind (especially in 3/6 or 5/10, where the SB is rarely worth playing even in an unraised pot).

Okay. I don't see how that helps your case.

It's a lot worse to get raised by the TAP to your left with a marginal hand than to safely limp in or raise after the TAPs have folded and get no play.

This is just wrongheaded. You are emphasizing rare events over common events: a TA raising 8% of the time, and ignoring a loose limper coming in 35% of the time.


Sorry, but I think you're exactly wrong.

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
You already know whether or not a bad player will be in a hand--well, they're in the game, aren't they?

I'm talking about an actual game here, the type that takes place at small stakes tables at the various online sites. Most of the loose players I'm talking about at 3/6 aren't 80% loose or 60% loose. They're 40% loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

The players and games CPK is talking about are make-believe... like elves and gremlins and eskimos. As far as fantasy lands go, it sounds like a nice place.

[MCS]

hi bison i read you're essay and i was thinking i understand that it's good to have the button. but i play 2/4, are you saying i should play the 15/30 at ub? lol it seems like the 2/4 would be easier. tia

--

Seriously, thanks. I have heard people make conflicting claims about position relative to other specific players, and this was way better than any response I ever thought of.

[cpk]

1. Even if you can loosen up for a juicy game, you are still going to play most of your hands from late position where you will play after everyone except the 2-3 players immediately towards your left--and you will play after them on all other rounds. Therefore, for most cases this is irrelevant.

2. The proper strategy for determining where to sit is not whether your opponents are loose or tight, but how aggressive they are. Inopportune raises wreck marginal hands, not failure to grab enough attention from the fish.

3. VPIP >30 players are only rarely blown off their blinds for 1 raise, especially if there are 4+ players in the pot. They play 1 hand out of 3 regardless of whether it's been raised--what makes you think they're going to lay down when the pot is huge and they have a down payment?

4. Say you have 4 VPIP >30 players (necessary to consider a game "good" at low limits, IMO). If you have the 4 VPIP >30 players to your left, you can count on at least 1 of them playing 75% of the time and at least 2 of them playing 35% of the time. This is enough to cover those situations where you would want to play marginal hands UTG (where you're not going to know what anyone is going to do anyway). If you raise VPIP to 40, these numbers go up to 87% and 52%.

5. In loose games, limping attracts limping. If you limp with marginal hands, you will induce people who might fold to limp. There's no way they can do this if their hands are in the muck already.

6. Postflop, it's better to be out of position against bad players than it is against good players.

7. While 6x VPIP >50 games are hard to find online, they are nearly ubiquitous in the B&M world. Otherwise, there would be nearly no point in playing B&M.

[Fnord]

Re-reading this, I think it's perpendicular to the "what games are the softest" discussion. However, it does spell out seat selection as being a big factor in success. Probably more-so than stuff like raise/call/fold AJ/KQ UTG which has been beaten to death.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed on playing hands, but I picked up on this pretty quickly. Then I later came to the stunning realization of just how juicy a short-handed full table is compared to the 6-max tables. I think it's stuff like this that makes me a consistant winner.

Now, we could go onto the techincal details of picking the right chair when you don't have much information to go on, but I think we've said enough already /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Fnord]

[ QUOTE ]
3. VPIP >30 players are only rarely blown off their blinds for 1 raise, especially if there are 4+ players in the pot. They play 1 hand out of 3 regardless of whether it's been raised--what makes you think they're going to lay down when the pot is huge and they have a down payment?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another reason to have the tight player(s) to my left. I like dead money in the pot with just bad players remaining. Many of the 4+ table crowd aren't terribly inclined to play slim holdings from their blinds. They have bigger things to think about in their other 7 windows...

[Josh.]

you should've waited for the February 2+2 magazine to put this out, fish. this is some quality stuff

[Aaron W.]

Up to this point, I have never practiced game selection. I just sign on and play at the first available table. My theory has been (and still is) that at this level, there are more than enough bad players to make the all these games beatable (this level for me = $1/2, but in general terms I'm referring to online small stakes games). Some will be harder than others, but none will require world-class skills to beat. Since my primary interest is not profit (as my financial well being does not rest on my poker playing) but simply to play the game better, I *believe* that it's helpful for me to sit in a variety of games to gain a variety of experiences, even if it would mean that I don't move up levels quite so fast. After all, why risk more money at a $5-10 game for experience when I can experience a similar game at $1-2 (for example).

[For reference, I also don't multi-table, which means I actually get to pay enough attention to notice the differences.]

So this leads me to my questions:
1) Does my hypothesis seem correct? (Enough bad players exist to make all tables beatable.)
2) Is the conclusion about gaining experience correct? (For the sake of learning to play better, it's fine to sit at one level rather than trying to race up to higher stakes)
3) Are there potential pitfalls that I should make myself aware of as I continue along this path of not choosing games? (Staying within a particular level and within financial tolerances -- as there are obvious pitfalls of chasing higher cost games)

Thanks.

[bisonbison]

you should've waited for the February 2+2 magazine to put this out, fish. this is some quality stuff

I'm not in it for the money. I'm in it for the arguing with people who are wrong wrong wrong.

[Hoi Polloi]

Thanks, bison. Great post.

[Fnord]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Does my hypothesis seem correct? (Enough bad players exist to make all tables beatable.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, depends on the playing conditions and how your style feeds into that.


[ QUOTE ]

3) Are there potential pitfalls that I should make myself aware of as I continue along this path of not choosing games? (Staying within a particular level and within financial tolerances -- as there are obvious pitfalls of chasing higher cost games)


[/ QUOTE ]

An important part of "choosing" good games is leaving bad ones.

[krishan]

This is the strongest, most convincing argument for relative position to fishes and tighties being the most important factor in table selection you have written. You should submit to the Feb magazine. Not for money, but because this is a post that everyone can benefit from reading. From micros, to shorthand, etc...

I liked it a lot.

Krishan

[cpk]

First, if you are raising hands for value on the button, the more the merrier.

Second, I'm OK doky with tight passives to my left. Really, that's the best of both worlds--you can limp in front of them, and you can rob their blinds all day without getting trapped.

Intentionally putting tight aggressives to your left is--frankly--stupid. I suspect the only reason bisonbison gets away with it is that his overall game selection is so good that he rarely gets punished. For maximum profit, it's best to avoid games with TAs altogether, but some games are still pretty good even with a couple TAs. You want them on your right.

Generally, here's what I want.

To my left: Passives, sLAs who telegraph (doesn't apply online), people who play extremely poorly postflop, compulsive checkraisers.

To my right: All other aggressives, people who play extremely well postflop, people with lots of money.

As far away as possible (ie, across the table): Total maniacs, because I can use them to control the betting regardless of where the button is.

Otherwise, it just doesn't matter. Can you see why?

This approach has helped me beat the game fairly well for 5 years. I just do not see bisonbison's approach as helpful in any of its meaningful points, and many of his ideas in this piece are actually harmful because they ignore the most important issue concerning marginal hands--marginal hands need high implied odds, and having aggressive players to your left jeopardizes that.

[Onaflag]

Here's what I think (which doesn't matter because I admittedly suck). As a noob, I have thought about this thread all friggin night trying to give Bison the upper edge because, hey, he's Bison.

At first, I'm thinking, great, another stupid thing I do that needs to be fixed. Select seats better and I'll increase my winnings. Something didn't click, however, so I ran through several scenarios and decided that if Bison's advice was correct, then I truly have no idea how to play poker. I want TAG on my right and Mr. Fish on my left. Do I need to explain why? I think not.

Then I read all of CPK's replies and think, whoa, wait a minute. Why are 2+2ers not siding with him? Because he's not Bison? Wait! Maybe it is Bison playing a joke on everybody. But its not April 1st, so I discount that theory.

WTF!? Unless there is something an idiot like myself is missing, CPK gets my vote for reply of the month! Convince me otherwise, but, come on! How in God's name can deliberately placing a TAG on your left and a fish on your right possibly help?

Bison, you have truly screwed up my night and I can only hope for a more detailed explanation because your advice goes against everything we've been taught. I want to know what TAG is going to do BEFORE I make a play on Fish. What the Hell am I missing (besides brains).

Onaflag.............

[buzzbait]

I like this post and found it helpful, thanks.
I think the point those that want the TA players on their right are missing is that when the TA is on your left the frequency of him raising a limp by you is so rare due to how infrequently you limp at the same time he has a hand to raise. If you limp 10% of the time (assuming 18/8 player) and he raises 8% of the time, this means he is raising less than 1 out of 10 of your limps and this situation is occurring 1 in every 125 hands (1/10 * 1/12.5). The situation where you would be able to raise 3 LP limpers in front of you for value if they are on your right would occur more frequently and is of more value to you than what you lose the rare time the TA raises a hand you happen to limp on.

[Malcom Reynolds]

I think it's scary how firmly you state your case and provide some very dangerous advice for people who don't know better, because your case sounds okay on the surface.

To my right: All other aggressives, people who play extremely well postflop, people with lots of money.

Since they are tight, often it will be folded or raised to you. Since they are to your right they will often be in EP. Well, you are going to be folding most hands when they raise. When it is folded to you, you are in the situation of open-raising or folding. If you have made it so the people to your left are really loose, you can only really open-raise with legitimate hands and have to fold most of everything else, since they will be calling two cold and you can't take a shot at the blinds with weak hands anymore. Whenever you do play, you will often be essentially in EP. The tighties fold to you, the loose players all limp in, and your absolute position will often be terrible those times you are in EP and MP.

If you have tight to your left and loose to your right, you will be able to play many more hands because you will be able to see a multiway pot forming and be able to play hands like suited connectors and whatnot. Ocassionally, someone to your left will raise, but at least you have a multiway pot to make up for it. And the chances of you and a tight person being involved in the same pot are lessened since you are both tight.

You are often going to come in for a raise, and since you put tight players on your left, they will almost always fold to your raise. So now you always have position on the loose players, AND will improve your position or buy the button. And those times that you limp, since they are tight, your position improves often dramatically anyway, since they will often all fold. It is a rare event that you get 3-bet since there are so few legitmate 3-betting hands, plus we need the parlay that you get a raising hand AND the opponent gets a 3-betting hand. It just doesn't happen often enough for it to be a huge concern.

Finally, sometimes you will get one really weak limper to you, and you can start making raises with marginal hands to isolate the limper. It is much easier to isolate with tight players to your left.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have made it so the people to your left are really loose, you can only really open-raise with legitimate hands and have to fold most of everything else, since they will be calling two cold and you can't take a shot at the blinds with weak hands anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

But assuming the loose players to my left aren't very aggressive, having them to my left means they will coldcall my legitimate raises with crap and limp after my limping hands.




[ QUOTE ]
Whenever you do play, you will often be essentially in EP. The tighties fold to you, the loose players all limp in, and your absolute position will often be terrible those times you are in EP and MP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see a problem with being in a position where I already know whether the tight players are going to be in the pot or not, and I'm going to have loose (but not aggressive) players after me who won't punish me for limping with drawing hands.

Although I think that Bison has made some interesting and thought-provoking points, I believe that the issue is a bit more complicated and less straight-forward than he presents.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Intentionally putting tight aggressives to your left is--frankly--stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having a tight aggressive player to your left is probably better than having a random player to your left at a full table, all else being equal.

The tight aggressive will not be enterring too many pots - he's *tight* after all - which means that you can do things like buy the Button with some impunity. It's true that a talented player will take better advantage of his position than an untalented player, but for the most part, you will stay out of one another's way - if you're playing 1/6 of your hands and he's playing 1/6 of his hands then you'll be involved in a hand together only 1/36 of the time. If the table gets down to 6-handed or so, then the TAG is going to loosen up a bit and that can be problematic, but any sort of conspicuously *tight* opponent, whether loose or aggressive, is a friend to your left at a full game.

It's the *loose* aggressive players that it's essential to have to your right.

[Derek in NYC]

A few thoughts on your criteria.

First, while I have done so in a B&M club, I have never made a table selection decision online based on relative position. Fact is, it is hard enough finding a decent table with more fish than sharks, I can't be too picky about my relative seat position if I can get on a good table. Additionally, whether you sit to the right or left of a TAG/LAG/LP whatever isn't going to determine whether you are going to win or lose... you just need to use different skills such as reraising to isolate, checkraising the field for value, etc. I personally think that learning how to use these skills is key to improving your game. If one's profitability turns on having ideal relative position, I propose that such a player's game is a crippled, mechanical game that won't be able to grow into higher limits.

One factor that I personally consider important, but that wasn't mentioned in your list, is stack size. Setting aside the sharks/fish ratio, I consider it highly desirable when all players have at least 15-20 BBs in front of them. (Obviously this is better when the fish have huge stacks, but it is generally applicable.) Deeper stacks means more stable opponents, which means better reads over the course of a session. Deeper stacks also means more stable tables that dont break down into shorthanded sessions. I will generally avoid sitting if more than 3 players have microstacks.

Absent buttons. Since Im sitting down at a full ring, obviously the presence of absent buttons is a negative. The blinds circulate faster, and I'm forced to play a game where I have less of an edge. So I won't sit if there are 2 or more absent buttons. Another reason I will avoid these tables is that in my experience they tend to be unstable. At around 3-4 absents, a table completely breaks down and people stop autoposting blinds. Next thing you know, you're heads up. In fact, as a table starts to empty out or go absent, I will unclick autopost and make each blind posting decision individually.

As you can see, a lot of my factors involve table stability. I hinted at the reason for this, but I'll be explicit. Stable tables give you good reads. You have a solid pokertracker dataset for everyone at the table, and you can maximize your edge as a skilled player. Where the table is unstable, and people are popping in and out (short stacks, absent buttons, etc.), you are forced to play a much more mechanical game. Harder to defend blinds, harder to 3-bet for isolation, harder to induce bluffs, etc. Overall, I think table stability is very important to a profitable session.

[Malcom Reynolds]

I also forgot to mention that having aggressive players to your left tends to put you in situations where you have excellent relative position postflop.

[donkeyradish]

I was going to post a question (outside of this thread), which was to be along the lines of "how do you find your limit"?. I've been playing at several different limits and not really settled on one.

But perhaps I was about to ask the wrong question entirely. There are good players and there are bad players at all the limits. I've played at some $1/$2 tables where I've been hammered all night. And in $10/$20 games where people seemed to throw money at me.

So I should probably only ever worry about how to find a good seat. And learn to stand up when its not so good.

[gchaos]

Leave it to yet another noob to question this, but is this really practical? If I am sitting at a good table (3 or more bad players), do I really care about where I am sitting? Perhap I am naive when I answer this myself with a a resounding NO. Am I willing to leave this table and wait for the best seat to open up? No. If I am on a waiting list for a juicy table and a spot opens up, should I decline it because the other players are not sitting where I'd like them? No.

I am really curious if people on this forum ACTUALLY do this because I just do not see it (admittedly, I never thought I could 4 table either).

Perhaps I have missed the point completely. Maybe bison was just throwing some the theoretical advice out there for discussion. Maybe this seems impractical for me because I only have a couple of hours each day to play online.

Dazed and confused....

[witeknite]

I think you are missing the point some when you say it's hard enough to find a table without too many TAG's. If you get a seat at a table with 6 TAG's and three fish it might be bad. The thing is though, if I'm at that table and the three fish are all lined up on my right, I'm not leaving until they do. Let's look at it from the stand-point of pre-flop position (i.e. EP/MP/LP). Then from relative position post-flop.

EP:

There really isn't any change from EP, since EP sucks to bad to get much help. You probably want to play as tight as normal.

MP:

Here you get first crack at isolating the bad limpers. If, on the rare occasion, none of them limp, you can really tighten up your starting hands. You will probably only be playing strong hands worth an open-raise. This requires any good opponent to only play 3-bet worthy hands giving you good info.

LP:

If one of the TAG's raise from EP-MP, you get to see how many fish CC the raise. If enough do, you will end up being able to CC as well with good drawing hands like little suited broadways and any PP.

All these reasons are for pre-flop. After the flop, draws and big hands become easier. With a weak draw, you can check, let a tag bet and by the time the action returns to you, the pot has grown due to the fish calls, thus giving you better pot-odds. With a strong draw, c/ring for value should be easier and more effective. You get more calls by never facing a fish with two cold, and you have better chances of a TAG on your left betting than if a fish was in that seat.

Money on a poker table tends to move in a clockwise direction. Isn't it more likely to move quicker from a bad player, than a good one?

WiteKnite

[witeknite]

I'd get up from a table with 3 fish if I had two+ tags on my right. The exception being if the bad players are playing every hand. Then I might stay until they bust out which shouldn't take long.

In another post I mention money on a poker table trending in a clockwise direction. Bad players push it left quickly, good players only let it trickle. Consider them as dams in the cash river at hold'em. It's a lot harder to fish on the low water side of a dam. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

WiteKnite

[bisonbison]

It is practical. I 8-table Party 3/6, and on an average night, the only difference between a good table and a mediocre table is where the open seat is. If the open seat is bueno, I sit. If the open seat is malo, I sit and quit so that they don't pester me anymore.

[Pov]

My .02 is probably worth less than .01, but I am very much in Bison's camp on this particular post.

Poker is not a battle to beat the TAG. It's a battle for the sucker money. The ability to isolation raise against a sucker before another TAG can isolation raise *you* out of it is more important than anything else for me at the table.

TAG's raising behind me are just building my odds since I only limp when this is precisely what I'm looking for. If you have 2-3 loose-passive callers in front of you and you limp with your 76s then end up in a 5 or 6 way raised pot with built-in checkraise the whole damn field potential . . . tell me how that isn't an absolute gold mine because it is my dream setup that I look for each and every time I play.

CPK's thinking makes sense and it's not that I disagree with what he's saying (well at least most of it) but it simply isn't going to make as much money because you can't fully exploit the weak players with that strategy. I'd rather be the agressor making them adjust to me than wait until after they do their thing and limit my choices.

[cpk]

If you have made it so the people to your left are really loose, you can only really open-raise with legitimate hands and have to fold most of everything else, since they will be calling two cold and you can't take a shot at the blinds with weak hands anymore.

This is nonsense. I would much rather play legit hands against people who cold-call two bets against them than grind it out stealing the blinds with very marginal hands--occasionally being isolated by tight, aggressive players with me taking far the worst of it.

You can argue all you want about how that will rarely happen--but because you're stealing with hands that have very thin margins, it doesn't take much to really screw you over.

I think it's scary how firmly you state your case and provide some very dangerous advice for people who don't know better, because your case sounds okay on the surface.

That's funny, I was about to say the same thing about bisonbison.

Perhaps part of the other philosophical difference between bison and myself is that he 8-tables and I 2-table at best. The reason is merely practical--I have a laptop with a 14" screen, and I do not have the time needed to pay off a $1k+ investment in the extra hardware needed to play at 4 or more tables.

I make most of my LL money B&M, because there are games around here where you can find a table full of players who are 50+/<5 or 50+/20. I have played enough time in such an environment to know what works and what doesn't.

Whenever you do play, you will often be essentially in EP. The tighties fold to you, the loose players all limp in, and your absolute position will often be terrible those times you are in EP and MP.

First of all, if you are playing at a table with 7 other tighties and only 2 loose players, you've got more problems than relative position (except at about 15/30 and higher). And, besides, in such games I tend to want tight passives to my immediate left for the exact reason you suggest.

Otherwise, when you are in LP, you will act after most of the weak players to begin with (except perhaps the 2 blinds). Therefore, you will be in great position in the situations where you should be playing most of your hands.

I'm going to repeat this one more time, because everyone seems to forget this: Marginal hands cannot stand preflop raises. If you have aggressives to your left, marginal hands cannot be profitable. Period.

Think. Why were you told, as a newbie, to muck 22 in EP but play it in a largish pot for one bet on the button? With the aggressives to your left, how can you ever play 22 in EP? If you have the passive players to your left, you can limp in with small pairs and suited aces in EP with relative impunity.

[cpk]

Poker is not a battle to beat the TAG. It's a battle for the sucker money. The ability to isolation raise against a sucker before another TAG can isolation raise *you* out of it is more important than anything else for me at the table.

1. You can't argue that I'm out of line worrying about being isolated by the TA when that is rare and then turn around and make this argument.

2. If you are in LP with a good multiway hand with a good, multiway pot, you can call cold when the TA raises--the large pot and great potential of your hand means that you are no longer in a marginal situation.

3. The only thing having the TA in the seat on the left buys you is the ability to check to him when he isolates you and then raise to build the pot (or bet into him to protect your hand). This is not as great as it sounds, because you sacrifice control of the hand to do this.

4. If you are instead to his left, you have the option to raise in order to protect your hand or call to build the pot. If you know that the players behind you will call 2 cold, you can raise anyway.

[habsfanca11]

Thanks Bison! Up until this week I would have sided with the counter arguement. On Monday I was lucky enough to find 1)LA weak, 2)LP, 3)calling station, 4)fish, 5) me, 6)TP, 7)TP, 8)changing 9)TAG, 10) LAG. It was beautiful! I knew I had better cards than the limpers and if I got three bet I knew where I stood and if I had odds to call and see a flop. Resulted in my only winning session this week. So while I may not be playing well, the concepts you have illustrated are exploitable (easily). Thanks for the post and the ensuing discussion. Cheers!

[Jake (The Snake)]

I completely agree with this concept but have trouble employing it myself at times.

How do you do about finding the good seats (weak opponents)? Do you just sit down and watch a few orbits? Or is there an easier way to do this without datamining (my computer can only handle so much)?

I feel like when I concentrate hard at finding the perfect seat, it takes me like 30 minutes or more to finally get all good tables. Then, sure enough, within an hour or so, the seat is no longer good.

[Kevin]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what I think (which doesn't matter because I admittedly suck). As a noob, I have thought about this thread all friggin night trying to give Bison the upper edge because, hey, he's Bison.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bison,
It is so great that you have such a fan club. You ought to do a college tour and charge admission for lectures /images/graemlins/smile.gif Seriously, though, thanks for the post. Good stuff and a great reminder for the "why's"

Later

[Jake (The Snake)]

why reply to my post? Now you make it look like I'm saying I'm a noob!

bah.

[bisonbison]

Bison, you have truly screwed up my night and I can only hope for a more detailed explanation because your advice goes against everything we've been taught.

I don't know who taught you. This is what I learned. It's not gospel, and some people will certainly disagree, but I'm not joking.

There are times when the effect is less important, but as near as I can figure, the theory still holds. Let me sum up: tight players of any sort represent only a small portion of your total opponents. Loose players of any sort represent a much larger slice proportionally. It is in your best interest to have position on the players you will play against most often.

Now, I haven't included a discussion of aggression here because I'm not able to explain it well or concisely yet. When I look at a table with known players, I usually have a strong feeling about where I want to sit. Or whether I want to sit at all. And the first layer of my evaluation is what I explained in the first post.

[Kevin]

[ QUOTE ]
why reply to my post? Now you make it look like I'm saying I'm a noob!

bah.


[/ QUOTE ]

very, very sorry about that - I just hit the bottom reply button. No offense meant or intended.

[Onaflag]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know who taught you. This is what I learned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, my library consists mostly of 2+2 books, so I'm not exactly sure what books you are reading. Maybe we should ask Dr. Alan Schoonmaker what exactly he means on page 312 of POP regarding Tight-Aggressive Opponents:

"Where to sit? On their left or as far away as possible."

Now, I'll repeat for the hard of hearing. This post baffled me because it goes against what we have learned FROM TWO PLUS TWO PUBLISHING!

I am going to need a Hell of a lot more convincing to take your advice over our esteemed authors.

Onaflag...........

[edtost]

i hope scrub chimes in here, he changes seats more than anyone i know. personally, i agree with bison, unless there is a tag at the table who is very good and knows me very well.

[cpk]

There are times when the effect is less important, but as near as I can figure, the theory still holds. Let me sum up: tight players of any sort represent only a small portion of your total opponents. Loose players of any sort represent a much larger slice proportionally. It is in your best interest to have position on the players you will play against most often.

In late position (CO & B), I play about 22-25% of my hands. On the button, I will always have position postflop, so it matters not. In the CO, if I have a passive on my left I can probably stretch this up a little. But, in any case, once you get much beyond 25% you're into -EV range even on the button and even if several fish limp in. Therefore, in this case it really doesn't matter where I sit. I'd prefer not to have the toughest person in the game to my immediate left, as the most marginal of that 25% get horribly wrecked even if they're raised only 8% of the time. If you have two aggressives to your left, this is now going to happen about 15% of the time. Bad. News.

In early position, I play 6-12% of my hands. Why the wide range? It depends on who's to my left. If I have all the passives on my left, I can play more like 12%, or even more, because I either only rarely will be raised, or if I am I will have enough in the pot to offset my raise.

To get the most money from the weak players, you need to play more hands, not fewer. I cannot see how this strategy of yours leads to playing more hands. In fact, it leads to playing fewer hands, and it leads to -EV on the most marginal.

The salient points are:

1. In LP you have position on most everyone already.
2. If you have passives to your left, you can play more hands in EP profitably, thus getting more money.
3. Again, I must stress that I do not object to putting tight players on the left as long as they're passive. In fact, the best spot for tight-passives is the two seats to your immediate left because you can blow them off their blinds with offsuit Broadway. This is a bad idea against players who will fight back (such as TAs).

I like the fact that you are thinking this through and challenging CW, but I must stress again that you are emphasizing the wrong concepts. Even though TAs will rarely raise behind you, it is very bad news for you when they do.

[Jake (The Snake)]

it's cool man /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[bisonbison]

No offense to Dr. Al, but I think that if your only seat at a table is to the left of a TAG or two, then it's not a good seat. That's it. But if two loose players were on his right, then I would certainly sit after him.

I just think that you have to think about frequency.

If you are a 15% VPIP and the TAG on your right is a 15% VPIP, guess how often you two will be in the same hand? 2% of the time. 2%.

[cpk]

All these reasons are for pre-flop. After the flop, draws and big hands become easier. With a weak draw, you can check, let a tag bet and by the time the action returns to you, the pot has grown due to the fish calls, thus giving you better pot-odds. With a strong draw, c/ring for value should be easier and more effective. You get more calls by never facing a fish with two cold, and you have better chances of a TAG on your left betting than if a fish was in that seat.

If the fish are on my left, I can get a check through with a weak draw and get infinite pot odds. With a strong draw, I can bet, feeling confident that most of the time I will not be raised and can raise my equity.

[cpk]

If I put a TA to my left, and I am in the CO, I will only get raised about 2% of the time, it is true--but I will get raised 8% or so of the time I play a hand. But if I put a 40/0-1 in that seat, I will get raised a lot less--when I play

Which is better? Playing a marginal hand that gets raised 8% of the time, or practically never? Marginal hands are called marginal for a reason.

Even with hands that aren't marginal, it's a serious problem. When the 40/1 LP raises, you know your JJ is no good. What about when a TA raises? Now what are you going to do? You're out of position against an excellent player with a hand that is normally very profitable. You will lose more when your hand is no good, and you will win less when it is. Even though this happens only a small % of the time, it happens far less when it's a passive player.

And that's just the point--it's not a matter of frequency. It's relative frequency. And relatively speaking, you're always better with passive players to your left. Always.

[cpk]

Here you get first crack at isolating the bad limpers. If, on the rare occasion, none of them limp, you can really tighten up your starting hands. You will probably only be playing strong hands worth an open-raise. This requires any good opponent to only play 3-bet worthy hands giving you good info.

Oh, and I forgot to mention: If the LA to your left figures out this is what you're doing, you're absolutely screwed. He will simply cold-call with all manner of things, and now you will be out of position against an excellent player after paying two bets with a one-bet hand. Nice.

If you are aware enough (difficult to do when 8-tabling, I know), you can reverse the situation if you have someone isolating in front of you. If you would've isolation-raised, it's OK to call here. Really. (Exception: Offsuit Broadway, but you shouldn't be making this isolation move from MP with OB anyway).

[edtost]

[ QUOTE ]
If you would've isolation-raised, it's OK to call here. Really.

[/ QUOTE ]

no its not.

do you see why?

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You can't argue that I'm out of line worrying about being isolated by the TA when that is rare and then turn around and make this argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? They have nothing to do with eachother. Maybe you're misunderstanding my statement. I said isolate raise you OUT of the pot. I'm not going to be isolated myself by the TAG very often because if there are no limpers I will be open raising or more likely folding most of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
2. If you are in LP with a good multiway hand with a good, multiway pot, you can call cold when the TA raises--the large pot and great potential of your hand means that you are no longer in a marginal situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Limping after several others limp knowing it *may* be raised behind you is considerably safer than calling cold hoping the bad players will call cold. Once again, I don't disagree with your logic, but I'd MUCH rather be in my version of the situation than yours - i.e. playing a lot of hands against weak opponents with position.

Admittedly, those times the TAG comes in behind me he has position on me, but I think I'm a good player and whatever edge he has on me is more than made up for by the HUGE edge I exert on the weak players that I have position on.

[ QUOTE ]
3. The only thing having the TA in the seat on the left buys you is the ability to check to him when he isolates you and then raise to build the pot (or bet into him to protect your hand). This is not as great as it sounds, because you sacrifice control of the hand to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you may give up position when you share pots, the main point of having early position on the TAG is that you control the GAME by being able to raise first and isolate yourself with position on weak opponents. Calling cold is almost always wrong (IMO) so you force the TAG to play only re-raising hands or make a mistake or fold. Sounds good to me.

[ QUOTE ]
4. If you are instead to his left, you have the option to raise in order to protect your hand or call to build the pot. If you know that the players behind you will call 2 cold, you can raise anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, but assuming they're the weak players, it's actually him I want to protect my hand against, not them. Put them in front of me so I can raise him out, not the players who will pay me off.

[Pov]

If the TAG starts cold-calling things then he's become more like the LAP's. Maybe you run into scary TAG's more often than I do, but personally I have very little fear of this. Their position will cost me some small amount of money unless they are really THAT much better AND get the right hands to punish me with some time in the next few hundred hands. Frankly, I believe this to be a pretty rare occurrence though I'm willing to entertain the thought that I am just too cocky in this opinion.

In any event, this small amount I'm giving up is blown away by the huge gains made with my position on the weak players. This is SSHE country, not HEFAP. If I was trying to eek out 1 BB/100 against solid opponents at some high limit or in a big tourney I would totally want the good players where I could see them act first.

But this is loosey goosey low limit play and I want to be first in line for dinner, not the one getting leftovers.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
If the fish are on my left, I can get a check through with a weak draw and get infinite pot odds. With a strong draw, I can bet, feeling confident that most of the time I will not be raised and can raise my equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the fish are on my right, I can get a check through with a weak draw and get infinite pot odds. With a strong draw, I can bet, feeling confident that most of the time I will not be raised and can raise my equity.

Only the fish are more likely to check with an aggressive player behind them than they are after you've shown weakness by checking first. You do lose out on some excellent c/r opportunities though.

[witeknite]

I was starting to type a nice long reply, but I figure what's the point. You do what you want to do. I tell you what though. You can sit on my left all day long and CC my raises. Sounds like a fun table.

I just ask that everyone think about the logic of the situations presented and come to your own conclusions. Don't take anyone else's word for it.

WiteKnite

[lostinthought]

[ QUOTE ]

I just ask that everyone think about the logic of the situations presented and come to your own conclusions. Don't take anyone else's word for it.

WiteKnite

[/ QUOTE ]

isn't that what most people do here anyways?
no reason to state the obvious.

haha. what a hypocrite I am.

[KaiShin]

Bookmarking.

[Bob T.]

I don't think there is anything to add. Nice rant.

[AJay]

So, let's say I'm going to play a couple of hours at night. If I'm really going to concern myself with table selection, I'll have to open quite a few windows and observe them for 20-30 minutes to get enough hand samples. And then I have to hope that a seat opens up in the right spot. Seems like a lot.

I would suggest, rather, just sit down. Play. Consider your table position while playing, and leave if it's poor. Just like you'd leave a table full of TAGs or stay at one full of LPPs.

(Another alternative I saw was to sit down at a table by yourself and wait for people to come to you...some claim this works well if you can handle short handed play well.)

[Mempho]

A very deserving bizzump