Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables. - Page 6

bisonbison · #51 01-20-2005, 09:25 PM

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.

Kevin · #52 01-20-2005, 09:36 PM

[ 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.

Onaflag · #53 01-20-2005, 10:03 PM

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

edtost · #54 01-20-2005, 10:08 PM

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.

cpk · #55 01-20-2005, 10:12 PM

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.

Jake (The Snake) · #56 01-20-2005, 10:33 PM

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

bisonbison · #57 01-20-2005, 10:35 PM

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%.

cpk · #58 01-20-2005, 10:37 PM

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.

cpk · #59 01-20-2005, 10:49 PM

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.

cpk · #60 01-20-2005, 11:12 PM

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).