TD and relative position
 

Am I that wrong to think that in TD, unlike in hold em, it is better to have bad players behind you rather than in front of you? Or at least it's relatively better than in hold em.

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
Am I that wrong to think that in TD, unlike in hold em, it is better to have bad players behind you rather than in front of you? Or at least it's relatively better than in hold em.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean, in part because in hold'em you always want position on "the money". Can you give a few examples?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: TD and relative position
 

Depends on what sort of bad players they are.

Re: TD and relative position
 

Sorry, TT, I like to be opaque I guess. In hold 'em, one likes to be to the immediate left of limpers and generally loose players to isolate. Usually these are bad players. It seems to me that in TD having good players behind me means they are going to use their position against me more often, while bad players don't know how to use their position as well. I'd rather be in position against the good ones, I think.

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, TT, I like to be opaque I guess. In hold 'em, one likes to be to the immediate left of limpers and generally loose players to isolate. Usually these are bad players. It seems to me that in TD having good players behind me means they are going to use their position against me more often, while bad players don't know how to use their position as well. I'd rather be in position against the good ones, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

With some exceptions, you always want to be last to act at all times. So anyone who is going to give you a hard time at the table you want behind you, not in front of you. TD is a game where position is critical, you will both make extra bets and save bets due to position.

T [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: TD and relative position
 

I agree with 2461, that it depends. There was a player who was playing in our games a few weeks ago where having direct position on him was a nightmare. He played most hands and was very aggressive- sounds like a person to have position on, right? But he would do things like checkraise with his 7 draws, and lead out into multiple opponents while still drawing. Having position on him in multiway pots (and yes I always 3 bet when he opened) meant that I would get trapped between him and whoever hit their hand behind me. Eventually I refused to sit in the first 2 seats to his left because they were so unprofitable.

But when I sat to his immediate right it was great. I would lead into him with my pat hands and often get 3-bets in. Plus, since he was so aggressive in position he would always try to raise and force a break.

Having weak/passive players to your right is also very beneficial since they won't be coming after your big blind very often when it folds to them, and when they do you can outplay them.

Good aggressive players who are always 3-betting my raises and then using their position well behind me I obviously don't want to my left either- so it depends.

Edited to add that I want you on the other side of the table from me Soviet- I don't want you constantly messing with my blind or have position on me.

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on what sort of bad players they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct, of course, but let's classify the types of bad players and talk about relative position relative to them.

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
There was a player who was playing in our games a few weeks ago where having direct position on him was a nightmare. He played most hands and was very aggressive- sounds like a person to have position on, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be my point as incoherent as it was. In hold 'em, the seat to the left of this guy would be a dream, while the seat to the right is jail (you are basically playing a slot machine waiting for a big hand).

Re: TD and relative position
 

Sounds like you just don't know some good ways to deal with a LAG fish on your left. That said it certainly is easiest with them on your right. In TDL and holdem and all poker games I can think of.

-DeathDonkey

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
With some exceptions, you always want to be last to act at all times. So anyone who is going to give you a hard time at the table you want behind you, not in front of you. TD is a game where position is critical, you will both make extra bets and save bets due to position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this distinct from relative position in hold em? I think it is, and many of us think about relative position relative to hold em. So we need to get away from that thinking, in much the same way we need to get away from the tendency to slow play, for instance.

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depends on what sort of bad players they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct, of course, but let's classify the types of bad players and talk about relative position relative to
them.

[/ QUOTE ]

At a full table I want the biggest LAGs (like the player I described- on my left). 4-handed or less I want position on them.

I hate a button who is always raising my big blind frequently.

I love a player who plays badly in my small blind- but I would prefer him to be on the passive side I think- not sure it matters too much.

I like having tight/passives on my right because it is easy to outplay them and they are usually very predicable.

I'm sure we can name some different types of bad players but I can't think of them right now.

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate a button who is always raising my big blind frequently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get used to it, there is a benefit in allowing them to beat up on you in the blinds. You will begin to see this as you start to play in bigger games where there are no soft players.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you just don't know some good ways to deal with a LAG fish on your left. That said it certainly is easiest with them on your right. In TDL and holdem and all poker games I can think of.

-DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps so, although I am sure you would grant me that one loses a lot of flexibility when one has a maniac behind one in HE.

This discussion has degenerated due to me being inarticulate. So, I will restate the question. I note that Theory of Poker has the following quote at page 161:

"Position is important in relation to the playing style of the other players in the game. You prefer to have the loose, aggressive player in the game sitting to your right and the tight, conservative player to your left. Then you can usually decide how to play your hand after the aggressive player has acted, while you don't have to worry about many surprises from the conservative player. You are also in a better position to control the aggressive player and indeed trap him into mistakes."

Now, of course, a "good" TD player, and HE player for that matter, is not a tight, conservative player. But still the natural tendency is to sit right behind the loosie.

However, I am not sure that should be the main factor to consider in selecting a seat in TD. Let's say for example the game is 4 handed. There is a seat next to the weak spot in the game. He plays too many hands and takes them too far. Not super aggressive. In the seat behind that is a very good player. The seat immediately behind him is a very good player that is judicious in selecting hands, uses position well, and can be tricky at appropriate times. There's a seat behind him. The other two players are solid, but nothing special.

Where do you sit?

What if the bad player is more on the aggressive side?

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
Get used to it, there is a benefit in allowing them to beat up on you in the blinds. You will begin to see this as you start to play in bigger games where there are no soft players.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the benefit? Is it so valuable that you cannot tell us?

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get used to it, there is a benefit in allowing them to beat up on you in the blinds. You will begin to see this as you start to play in bigger games where there are no soft players.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the benefit? Is it so valuable that you cannot tell us?

[/ QUOTE ]

not at all, but if you know my style at all then you would know that I like to encourage thought process rather than give the definitive answer. A few things to consider:
- the average cost to see the river
- the amount of information you get from your opponent when playing out of position
- the advantage your opponent has when he is last to act
- how over-aggressive players tend to spew chips.
- The #1 error a TAG makes - this one is going to be interesting!

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]

Where do you sit?


[/ QUOTE ]

Am I a fish?

Re: TD and relative position
 

In 2-7/everything, I always prefer to be on the left of loose players. You'll have position on them more times than they'll have position on you. The difference between Holdem/2-7 for me is when playing with tight players. In Holdem I prefer that I'm on their right, especially shorthanded, because I want to be able to treat the CO as a second button. In 2-7 I don't care as much because there are a lot more hands that I'm going to be able to 3bet comfortably with than in Holdem, and I will have position on them. If I'm first to open that's nice, but I will unfortunately be OOP against them for the rest of the hand. This said, I think being first to open is definitely favorable in lower games where opponents are fairly predictable. If I played higher I'm guessing I'd still like to be on their right, simply for the reason that if a loose player is on my right, I would have first chance at isolating them.

If there is more than one available seat then I would get the one with best position on a loose player, specifically NOT OOP against them. While it's nice to be in a good position against a tight player, you're going to make way more being in a good spot against terrible loose idiots than against solid players.

Re: TD and relative position
 

I suppose that matters too. You should decide for yourself.

Re: TD and relative position
 

I think the number one error a TAG makes is breaking when he or she shouldn't. This probably is not what you have in mind.

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]

- The #1 error a TAG makes - this one is going to be interesting!


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly it's not controlling the size of the pot.

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the number one error a TAG makes is breaking when he or she shouldn't. This probably is not what you have in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll accept that... I should have said the #1 error a TAG makes that is not commonly known. I think breaking is the #2 error, most would disagree, its very close regardless.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose that matters too. You should decide for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay, I'm not a fish!

Well, maybe I am....

This thread has generated an unfortunate contradiction within my psyche.

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the number one error a TAG makes is breaking when he or she shouldn't. This probably is not what you have in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll accept that... I should have said the #1 error a TAG makes that is not commonly known. I think breaking is the #2 error, most would disagree, its very close regardless.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's a huge error, but at the end of hands I would often feel like a lot of the time I could have just called an opponent's bet before the last draw with a fairly solid pat hand in position and let them pat and draw dead. Then you either win 1 less bet or the same amount of bets, without the horrible possibility of losing the whole pot if you make your opponent break and they get there.

I wouldn't think that this is what you had in mind, but you said it wasn't common, and I don't see anyone ever do this, and it does occur to me occassionally that this might be a good play, but then I don't do it anyway.

Re: TD and relative position
 

I find your posts ambiguous. But thanks for posting.

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find your posts ambiguous. But thanks for posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're replying to my post then my excuse is that I haven't slept in a couple days. Normally my posts make sense and are readable.

Re: TD and relative position
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the number one error a TAG makes is breaking when he or she shouldn't. This probably is not what you have in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll accept that... I should have said the #1 error a TAG makes that is not commonly known. I think breaking is the #2 error, most would disagree, its very close regardless.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's a huge error, but at the end of hands I would often feel like a lot of the time I could have just called an opponent's bet before the last draw with a fairly solid pat hand in position and let them pat and draw dead. Then you either win 1 less bet or the same amount of bets, without the horrible possibility of losing the whole pot if you make your opponent break and they get there.

I wouldn't think that this is what you had in mind, but you said it wasn't common, and I don't see anyone ever do this, and it does occur to me occassionally that this might be a good play, but then I don't do it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a 1 bet error. Think of errors that cost the hero significantly more money. Think of the fundamental theorem of poker, it applies to TD yet few TAG consider it. Another hint - see my post about 3-betting from the SB against a possible button steal.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: TD and relative position
 

Raising when they should call. D'oh!