[jeffnc]

Two comments. First, against bad players, it's true you lose some advantages. For example, if you're an excellent bluffer, you lose a good deal of that advantage. If you're an excellent hand reader, you lose a good deal of that advantage. However, you more than make up for that by simply playing better cards on average and stronger hands on average. I always laugh when I hear about players who call themselves "good" but then claim a table full of bad players can't be beaten. If you can't adjust, then you really have a limited skill set.

Regarding position, the majority of players, both good and bad, do not understand it that well. Bad players make the bigger mistake - they don't understand how being "in position" can be a big advantage. Some good players who have read some books make a smaller mistake. They overrate the importance of position in the sense that they think it's always a big advantage to be "in position". For one thing, they sometimes play cards that are too weak or try to make too many plays "in position". But the more common mistake is to forget that being first to act is often a big advantage, not the huge disadvantage that all the poker authors try to tell us it is. Usually, but not always, it's better to act late. Sometimes, probably more often than some people think, it's better to act first. Comments?