[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.