How often do you leave a great game due to a poor seat?

[chesspain]

The other night I was playing for three hours in a donktasktic 3-6 online game. In addition to me, there were generally four or five tightish players, and four specific players who were loose-passive, calling station donkeys. Unfortunately, three of these donkeys were sitting among the four seats to me direct left. Without exaggeration, at least 75% of the time when I raised preflop all three would coldcall. Of course, the overwhelming majority of time when I raised I received either whiffed overcards or TP/overpairs that were run down by flushes (at least three different times). Not surprisingly, I finished down approx. thirty big bets.

Do I just chalk this up completely to variance? If not, how much of a drag on my theoretical, expected earn can be expected from having poor position on calling stations?

[jrz1972]

Good question, and one I find myself wondering about as well.

FWIW, I tend to leave the game in the situation you describe. I know I'll have better cards than the donkeys, on average, but I'm going to have to play every single hand out of position against players who I will never be able to put on a range of hands. I'm sure such a game can be +EV, but there are going to be other games out there that are even more +EV and with less frustration.

[chopchoi]

Consider yourself lucky to have that bad run and only be down 30BB. It's all variance. Yeah, you would've done better with a better seat, but you're still better off with a bad seat at a table full of fish than a good one at a table full of sharks.

Next time, check the wait list. If it's short, get up and join the list. This isn't a good strategy with only one fish at the table, because his seat will usually be the first to open up when he goes broke, but with 4 fish, you know one will bust out soon and leave his seat, and there'll still be 3 fish left for you.

[cheer]

[ QUOTE ]
but you're still better off with a bad seat at a table full of fish than a good one at a table full of sharks.

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but you're still better off with a bad seat at a table full of fish than a good one at a table full of sharks.

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, this is like one of those statements about lowering taxes raising revenues, sure its true sometimes and its not true other times. The statement itself is pointless without more information.

[Harv72b]

I can't remember ever leaving a good game due to bad relative position. And I've been in that situation many, many times.

It's all a question of adjusting your gameplay. Forget about blind stealing. Don't feel like you have to raise your borderline starting hands...with that many loose players to your left, it might be better to limp first in from MP with your KQo, KJs, AT type hands. Ditto goes for speculative hands...assuming they are also fairly passive, you can limp in with near impunity holding small pairs, suited connectors, suited aces, etc.

It's obviously better to have position on the donkeys, be able to take your free cards or raise your strong hands & whatnot. But by adjusting your own game to the conditions, you should still have a very good expectancy while out of position. And, incidentally, loose/passives are also pretty good about giving you free cards, if you'll let them. I.e., don't feel like you have to fire again on the turn with A high 100% of the time...in fact, in most cases it's better to check/fold there against these types of players. Even the flop continuation bet shouldn't be overdone.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't remember ever leaving a good game due to bad relative position. And I've been in that situation many, many times.

It's all a question of adjusting your gameplay.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never left a game because of where I was sitting. One of my main, early goals was being able to play from any position. Especially in the cases where you wait quite a while for the only game to have a seat open. You just have to learn to deal with it. You can always put yourself up for a seat change.

Reminds me of an old 2+2 meet. I was 4th in line of Dude, GoT and Slavic. There were also 3 or 4 lagtards on our table. Good game, actually. I just figured I wasn't going to see many flops...

b

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
It's all a question of adjusting your gameplay. Forget about blind stealing. Don't feel like you have to raise your borderline starting hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realized fairly quickly that blind stealing and raising light were not good strategies for this table.


[ QUOTE ]
Don't feel like you have to fire again on the turn with A high 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't a problem against this crew. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
In fact, in most cases it's better to check/fold there against these types of players. Even the flop continuation bet shouldn't be overdone.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol...like I was going to continuation bet A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] into three calling stations on 6 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] board.

[Harv72b]

Yeah, I fully realized when I was writing that reply that nothing I said was going to be news to you. Just figured I'd write it all out for the huddled masses of lurkers. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Had a near-perfect example of this come up tonight. 6max table with myself, 3 good TAGs, one loose/passive, and one absolute maniac. The TAGs were all to my right, maniac directly to my left, and LP on the other side of him.

Long story short, in the about 90 mins it took for the loose/passive to bust out & the maniac to leave, I took about 35 BBs off them. And I didn't run all that good.

[Clinger]

[ QUOTE ]
Just figured I'd write it all out for the huddled masses of lurkers. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Much appreciated. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]