Evaluating Sites/Levels/Games and Tables.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
The button, your left-hand opponent, plays 20% of his hands. That means 80% of the time when you're in the CO, you're actually the button.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beautiful. I always knew about wanting the tight players to your left so you could raise them out, but never thought about how it buys you extra buttons.

Thanks again, Bison, for an eye-opening post.

[Knoler]

Excellent post. I've been noticing the great impact of some of these things lately as I've been wading through the wilderness of 1/2 full as well as beginning to dabble in 2/4. This post really helped clarify those ideas.

[ QUOTE ]
It's also why I wish sites had a "seat change" option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a tip for the Party folk. If you're at a table and the seat you want opens up, and there aren't any people on the waiting list, you *can* change seats.

If you get up from the table and then go back to the same table, the Party server will put you back in your old chair, like the monkey you are. But, if you leave the table and open *any other table* then quickly close it and go back to your table, you can take any seat you want.

This has only come in handy for me a couple of times, since there are usually waiting lists. But, there it is, if it helps you out...

Regards,
-Brian

[frank_iii]

Great post, but there's no good way that I can see to deliberately sit to the left of the unskilled players. The best/better tables at night all have relatively long waiting lists and, when I finally get a seat, I'm usually just happy enough to be there. Do others select 'Take me off the list' then just get back on the list after the undesirable seat has been filled?

[cpk]

So what circumstances are you looking for in Hold'em? You make money when other players make mistakes, so you want to be in as many hands as possible with players who make a lot of mistakes. How do you know when a bad player will be in a hand? By sitting on his left. At a ten-handed table, you act after your right-hand neighbor 90% of the time. Nine times out of ten, when you're evaluating a preflop play with a marginal hand, you know whether you'll have this donator to take money from. Your relative position is a big advantage. If you were sitting on his right, you'd never know if he was coming in or not. This advantage holds to a lesser degree for the players two or three or four seats away.

This is wrong. You already know whether or not a bad player will be in a hand--well, they're in the game, aren't they? Further, your most profitable situations are when several LP-Ps limp in and you can raise on the button or cutoff with a hand that is normally marginal (eg, A7s). By definition, you are on everyone's relative left when you're on the button except for the two blinds--and if you know they're loose and weak, you know that jacking up their blinds will only invite them in, and you have position on every subsequent round.

What I'm saying is that for loose, weak players, position does not matter. You know that they will not raise, so you can limp in up front with weaker hands. You will have position on the button anyway, and the blinds will call a raise.

You're even more wrong about putting TA-As to your left. Say you're in a game with 8 fish and 1 TA-A. If the TA-A is to your immediate left, you will have to fold hands like 33, A7s, and the like that you could easily play if he were not sitting there. To me, this is a much bigger disadvantage that massively outweighs getting the button more often. I'm not terribly concerned if a loose, weak player who rarely gives action sits behind me on the button when I'm in the cutoff. I am a lot more concerned about having to muck JTs because I worry about getting isolated by an 18/8 who raises just often enough to keep me guessing.

Further, it is far more important to play tighter when a tougher player is in the pot than it is to play looser when a weak player is in the pot. The reason is that in the latter instance you can end up costing yourself a lot of money with little to be gained. And, besides, putting the TAPs to your left is not how to make your marginal hands more profitable in early position! Finally, if you sit on the toughest player's immediate left, you will not even have to worry about blind defense--I'm not usually concerned about tough players stealing my small blind (especially in 3/6 or 5/10, where the SB is rarely worth playing even in an unraised pot).

I think you make a couple of interesting points, but you're emphasizing the wrong variables. It's a lot worse to get raised by the TAP to your left with a marginal hand than to safely limp in or raise after the TAPs have folded and get no play.

[cpk]

How can a TAG (most all LL TAGs have PFR < 10) who is involved less than 20% of the time make life "miserable" for you. At least 2/3 of the time you'll not be in a hand with them. More than seven times out of ten they won't even be raising when you want to play.

I'll tell you what makes me miserable: Limping in with JTs only to get isolated by an aggressive player with AJ. And now, I'm out of position. That's a serious drag.

Again, why do I need position post-flop against people who rarely bet and never raise?

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
It's also why I wish sites had a "seat change" option.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% agreed.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a seat change option would make unskilled players less comfortable if they see that everyone wants to sit next to them. At a B&M room, you can just pretend you don't like the cut of your neighbor's gib.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary; I almost can't imagine doing this live. It would seem awkward to me.

Online, I doubt many fish would even notice.

[cpk]

I think if seat changes were limited and prioritized it could work.

In a B&M setting, I usually move to only an end seat with the proper positional advantages over others. Because most players understand why end seats have inherent value, even tough players will not get suspicious as to why I just moved to their left.

I like end seats, anyway, simply because I can see the entire table without turning my head. This allows me to receive the most tells while leaking the fewest tells.

[bisonbison]

This is wrong.

No. No, it's right.

You already know whether or not a bad player will be in a hand--well, they're in the game, aren't they?

I'm talking about an actual game here, the type that takes place at small stakes tables at the various online sites. Most of the loose players I'm talking about at 3/6 aren't 80% loose or 60% loose. They're 40% loose.

Further, your most profitable situations are when several LP-Ps limp in and you can raise on the button or cutoff with a hand that is normally marginal (eg, A7s).

You're overstating your case. My most profitable hands are hands I would play in any case: AA, KK, AKs, AK, QQ... The marginal hands I am describing are things like 33 in MP. If you have loose players in front of you, they are more likely to limp, allowing you to limp with greater confidence that you'll have the necessary implied odds to hit your set.

and if you know they're loose and weak, you know that jacking up their blinds will only invite them in, and you have position on every subsequent round.

Do you actually play poker? You do realize that any player in the world is more likely to call in an unraised pot than in a raised one?

What I'm saying is that for loose, weak players, position does not matter.

Wrong.

You know that they will not raise, so you can limp in up front with weaker hands.

Wrong. They will raise, they will just raise less often than more aggressive opponents. I am talking about actual situations that occur in games.

You will have position on the button anyway, and the blinds will call a raise.

Gibberish.

If the TA-A is to your immediate left, you will have to fold hands like 33, A7s, and the like that you could easily play if he were not sitting there.

No. Say our TA-A friend plays 15% of his hands. He could only effect your play on 15% of your hands, and he's only going to raise half the time when he does play.

I am a lot more concerned about having to muck JTs because I worry about getting isolated by an 18/8 who raises just often enough to keep me guessing.

See, you don't get isolated as often when you have loose players in front of you, because they're loose, and you are not alone and therefore can't be isolated. See how that works?

Further, it is far more important to play tighter when a tougher player is in the pot than it is to play looser when a weak player is in the pot.

Sure, but if you both play 20% of your hands, how often are you two going to overlap? 4% of the time.

And, besides, putting the TAPs to your left is not how to make your marginal hands more profitable in early position!

It's not all about EP. Besides, only once do you act first preflop. If you've got a 40% loose in front of you, overlimping when he limps will very often create a multiway pot.

I'm not usually concerned about tough players stealing my small blind (especially in 3/6 or 5/10, where the SB is rarely worth playing even in an unraised pot).

Okay. I don't see how that helps your case.

It's a lot worse to get raised by the TAP to your left with a marginal hand than to safely limp in or raise after the TAPs have folded and get no play.

This is just wrongheaded. You are emphasizing rare events over common events: a TA raising 8% of the time, and ignoring a loose limper coming in 35% of the time.


Sorry, but I think you're exactly wrong.

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
You already know whether or not a bad player will be in a hand--well, they're in the game, aren't they?

I'm talking about an actual game here, the type that takes place at small stakes tables at the various online sites. Most of the loose players I'm talking about at 3/6 aren't 80% loose or 60% loose. They're 40% loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

The players and games CPK is talking about are make-believe... like elves and gremlins and eskimos. As far as fantasy lands go, it sounds like a nice place.