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

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
So if you are SURE that your tight players are rocks, NOT TAG's catching krap cards, then sure, have the tighties on your left. But I'd like to think I've played the role of presumed tightie when my cards sucked fumes and then punished people for a couple of orbits when some decent cards finally showed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be missing the point that it doesn't really matter if the players to your left are TAGs (fairly tight) or "rocks" (very tight), since TAGs will still be playing fewer than 20% of their hands at a full-ring table. In addition, if I have a couple of calling stations on my right who are playing 30%-50% of pots and have both entered the pot ahead of me, I'm not going to be as concerned that the TAG to my left is putting a move on us if he raises (or reraises me), since he has to deal not only with me but the with calling stations in this quasi-protected pot.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

i didn't really read the post, but joe tall has told me many times that he will leave a great fantastic super wonderful fun lovely the whole reason why you even play poker type game because of a bad seat.

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
i didn't really read the post, but joe tall has told me many times that he will leave a great fantastic super wonderful fun lovely the whole reason why you even play poker type game because of a bad seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that Joe Tall (and many other players) can expect to gain a lot more from having position on the poor player(s) than the rest of us. Or me, at least.

I like to think that I'm fairly good, even better than average, but I don't believe that I'm really going to gain that much by having position on a terrible player vs. just being at the same table as him. Certainly not enough to warrant missing a few orbits or more waiting for a better seat.

[Little_blue]

It depends hou good the game is....if I have 2 loose players only and there to my left I usely get up...more then that..I begin to think about getting up and puttign my name on the weighting list for the same gaem. Watch the game for 15 minutes it will probably be worth more then what you might win..

Accorindg to mike caro...table positon (primarily loose players to your right) is 50% of your profits year in year out.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i didn't really read the post, but joe tall has told me many times that he will leave a great fantastic super wonderful fun lovely the whole reason why you even play poker type game because of a bad seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that Joe Tall (and many other players) can expect to gain a lot more from having position on the poor player(s) than the rest of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be saying that since Joe plays better than the majority of us, his EV should be higher than ours at this same table--making it even more likely that he would stay, rather than leave. But the fact is that Joe allegedly claimed he would leave this type of table, which he would likely not do unless he usually felt that:

1) He thought there was another game with a higher EV, and/or
2) His predicted +EV for remaining in the game OOP would not be worth his time or effort to continue playing.

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be saying that since Joe plays better than the majority of us, his EV should be higher than ours at this same table--making it even more likely that he would stay, rather than leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no....I'm saying that because Joe plays g00ter than most all of us, the advantage he would get from position would be even greater than it would be for one of us. Assuming that he would make fewer mistakes and make better use of the additional information he'd get via position, he'd gain much more by changing seats than you or I might.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was up 60+BB in 4 hrs. on this kind of table

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have been on one helluva a heater catching cards left and right because you can't out play opponents in SSHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's more to 'outplaying' opponents than just knocking them off hands.

I do agree that 60BBs in 4 hours is quite a heater, though.

b

[SixForty]

Wow - lots of interesting discussion in this post!

Haven't been around here in the longest time, but I figured I'd toss my 1.5 cents in.

When I look at certain types of players and where I want them at the table, I categorize people into four different types:
- loose/aggressive
- loose/passive
- tight/aggressive
- tight/passive

A loose/aggressive player I want on my right. Since he's loose, he'll be betting/raising with hands lower than my standards, so I can isolate a lot and know I'm ahead. Also, acting after his aggressiveness, I have a better idea as to how much a betting round will cost me.

A tight/passive player I want on my left. Since he's tight, I can push him out of more pots. I can open raise weaker and steal more. My hand protection and free card plays can cause him to fold and win me more pots. And since he's passive, I don't have to worry as much about it getting raised behind me, and can play more draws and weaker draws.

A tight/aggressive I don't really want at my table. That style is often the sign of a better player, and even if it isn't, it's at least a sign that it will be harder to get his money. Also, it's a trickier style to play against and just makes the game tougher in general.

A loose/passive player is gold! I'll take them anywhere at my table! Left, Right, straight across from me - it doesn't matter. These people are the donators, and they are where I make most of my money. If the only open seat is to their right, I'll take it and smile.

So, when I'm considering position at the table, I'm mostly considering where the loose/aggressives are and where the tight/passives are. Those two types are my main concern.

Now, in regards to chesspain's original situation, in a game where there's 4 specific loose/passive calling station donkeys, and 3 of them to my immediate left, it would take a heck of a lot to drag me away from that table. True, I'd probably rather be to their left, so that they are lined up for me to take down, but I'll still play if I'm on their right.

All it requires is some standard adjustments that most people here should already know. You can't steal as much (pretty much never). You won't be able to isolate as much, so don't try to isolate with as weak a hand as you may otherwise. Don't continuation bet light. Feel free to try and take free cards out of position on the turn, since you'll still get them often enough. Things like that.

But honestly, if I have the situation that you descibed, I'm loving the fact that I'm getting 3 cold callers almost every time I raise preflop. I know that in the long run, I'm making tons of money off that fact alone. And I love the fact that I can value bet the river a fair bit lighter than normal, since the people behind me are calling even lighter.

So to answer the original question, I don't consider this a poor seat, so I'm not leaving! From the sounds of it, I'd chalk it up to variance.

[_TKO_]

With four sources of money, I don't think it's worth leaving. If the two players to my left were the only sources of money, I would definately leave. I can't really quantify when I "feel" the game is unprofitable, but I'm getting better at the more I play. Don't get me wrong, I would certainly question the profitability of the game you described, but would probably come to the conclusion that it is still worth it to play. However, I may opt to look for a more profitable seat on another table.

There was a comment in this thread saying that a good seat at a bad table is worse than a bad seat at a good table. I have had just a few opportunities to sit to the direct left of a HUGE donator on a table otherwise filled with TAGs. Maybe it's just variance, but those sessions have seen some very healthy earns. A lot of the money comes from isolating the weak players, whether it be pre- or post-flop. In Chess's situation, this opportunity doesn't exist, but it doesn't mean that the game isn't profitable.

Anyway, c/r the flop for OOP freecards.

[Guruman]

I just about never leave a great game because of a bad seat, but I will immediately aim my poker antenna at a prime seat when it becomes available.

If there's a huge wait for the table and I'm in the OP seat, then I'll get up. If not, then I just turn my bluff gun off and move to a prime spot at my first opportunity.

I like playing with postflop reads though, so this discourages table jumping and encourages seat jumping.

Seat jumping is of course much more difficult in a live situation - which is where I tend to run into these spots (because its just about the only time I play full) and i'll tend to just take a break if I dont find the action to my liking.

Also- I tend to scout my seats before sitting in. I'll want a crazy or a loose passive to my right as a primary criterion for sitting into almost any online game. Otherwise I'll just start my own table.