Re: My thoughts... focus also on table stability
 

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

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

WiteKnite

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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.

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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.

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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.

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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.

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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!

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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.

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Seriously, though, thanks for the post. Good stuff and a great reminder for the "why's"

Later

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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

bah.

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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.

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

[ 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.

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

[ 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...........

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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.

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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.

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

it's cool man [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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%.

Re: My thoughts... focus also on table stability
 

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.

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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.

Re: My thoughts... focus also on table stability
 

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).

Re: My thoughts... focus also on table stability
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

no its not.

do you see why?

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

[ 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.

Re: My thoughts... focus also on table stability
 

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.

Re: My thoughts... focus also on table stability
 

[ 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.

Re: My thoughts... focus also on table stability
 

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

Re: My thoughts... focus also on table stability
 

[ 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.

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

Bookmarking.

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

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.)

Re: Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.
 

A very deserving bizzump