I've been thinking alot about position...

[flubsy]

I dont think there is enough theory written about it, and that it is probably one of the most underrated components in poker. So I put together some thoughts on the subject. I really think they are quite simple ideas, but whenever I show them to someone, they just go, "huh?"

Maybe Im not stating it all correctly, or maybe I'm way off, but I was hoping to find someone in 2+2 that had perhaps, thought about this along the same lines, or even well beyong my few thoughts and observations.

If this makes sense to you, or you can see flawed logic somewhere, please post your comments. Thank you.
________________________________________________

Positional Value in Texas Hold'em.

*All components and relevant factors which go into a hand of poker carry an inherent 'value'.

*Position is a component and relative factor.
_______________________________________

For calrification, here are a few definitions for terms Im using that are unique to my observations:

Position value: the inherent value of a position prior to any action taking place.

Effective value: Position value that either fluctuates or shifts to another position.
________________________________________

With everything else being equal, the position of the player who is first to start to act, has the lowest value; and the position of the player who is last to start to act has the greatest value.

The effective value of a player's position increases(+) when the # of players in the hand required to act before they act increases(+).

The effective value of a player's position decreases(-) when the # of players able to act after they act increases(+).

When one position opens the pot (bets first), every position with greater position value loses effective value as a result; likewise, every position with less position value, gains effective value as a result.

Only when a player folds their hand, does their position lose all effective value; likewise, whenever a player folds their hand, their position loses all effective value.

Player predictability, decreases the effective value of that player's position (the extent of which depends on the degree of predictability.)

When one position loses effective value, the positions to their right may aquire it whenever they still have an option to act in the betting round. _____________________________________

Applying these observations, can lead to other reasonable assumptions, for instance;

- Calling stations and maniacs can rely less on position for value because they are consistently predictable in every position, thereby decreasing every positions' value. However, whoever is seated to their right (assuming they are not predictable too) have increased position value in any position.

-the more people you have acting to your left with predictability to their play, the greater your position's value becomes (imagine that they are taking the lost value of the position to their left and just passing it down till it stops at you). Until, MP, for instance, could theoretically have the same value as the button. In which case, MP could then equitably call/raise the same range of starting cards they would have in late position.

-when one position opens the pot, every position with greater position value loses effective value as a result, and every position with less position value, gains effective value as a result.

-Since betting/raising, simutaneously increases the # of players to act after, and before you, an exactly equal amount, it does not alter your positions' effective value.

-Given that everytime a player to your left folds, your position can potentially gain value, and betting doesn't decrease your positions' value, with regard to the concept of position value, it appears that betting when you have fold equity is never a bad idea.

[mjws00]

tl;dr wtf? j/k

I think you could write your main points in bullet form in a sentence or two instead of mumbo jumbo. Even the last contracts I had drafted are easier to read than this.

Simplify and you will get comments:

1)Acting last is better than acting first (Sure)
2)With more players. Acting last is more important. (No. Even HU position is extremely important.)
3)The more players left to act behind the less valuable your position. (Sure)
4)When someone bets those who have acted gain value. Those left to act lose value. (Blech. What about the next round of betting? Sounds screwy.)
5)When you fold position is of no use to you. (Who cares.)
6)Predictability counteracts the value of position. (Sure.)

I love theory, math, complexity, legalese, deep thought, philosophy blah blah blah. But seriously who is going to wade through this when it is just overcomplicating rather simple concepts and adding nothing new?

I tried... couldn't make it.

[flubsy]

[ QUOTE ]
1)Acting last is better than acting first (Sure)

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's my point. You always hear that, but position is much more that that. Also, that's not what I was saying, what I said is "being last to act first is better than being first to act first" which seems slightly different, but is actually a BIG difference; as we all know. Another point about the first rule is that it is referring to the starting value of positions, prior to any action taking place in the hand. (because it refers only to position value, not effefctive value)

Technically, the button is not necessarily last to act...but it does have the potential to be the last to act first, which has alot of value...until someone else bets first. In fact, its best to read through what I wrote imagining there is no button. That, theoretically, there could be hundreds of people, all in a circle, and the same rules still apply (or it could be HU). Also, theoretically, if someone always raised before the action got back around to the person who raised first, there would never be someone last to act. Who is last to act isn't dictated by position, but rather the rule, "a player cannot raise themselves"

[ QUOTE ]
With more players. Acting last is more important. (No. Even HU position is extremely important.)

[/ QUOTE ]

again, your statement has a key difference. Im saying that if the amount of players that must act before you have to act increases, your value increases. The amount of players left to act before a player in HU never increases, it only decreases when one of them folds. As to the importance of position HU, that is why I said in the first statement "there are starting values to each position, and the guy who gets to act first after everyone else has acted first gets to start out with the highest value." So, with your HU example, starting position has alot more VALUE HU, because there are not as much factors which will alter its value.

[ QUOTE ]
3)The more players left to act behind the less valuable your position. (Sure)

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, again, this is like the last one. The rule is saying when the # of players to act behind increases, your position suddenly has less value. Example:
If say, I am on the button, and there are 9 players in the hand, and after they all check to the CO, the CO bets; I now have to choose how to respond to the bet with 8 other players to act behind me. The more players behind me, the more the CO's bet has screwed over my position's value. On the other hand, if say the SB opens the pot, and I am on the BUTTON, the bet did not increase the # of players left to act behind me when I have to make my decision, so did not decrease my positions' value in this way.

That's the difference, does that make more sense?

[ QUOTE ]
4)When someone bets those who have acted gain value. Those left to act lose value. (Blech. What about the next round of betting? Sounds screwy.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, its screwy...its the start of something, Im sure, but I cant quite get this one right.

[ QUOTE ]
5)When you fold position is of no use to you. (Who cares.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The players to your right that will still have an option to act care- they get to aquire your positions' value.

[ QUOTE ]
6)Predictability counteracts the value of position. (Sure.)

[/ QUOTE ]

More importantly, it increases the value of the positions to your right left to act.

[ QUOTE ]
I love theory, math, complexity, legalese, deep thought, philosophy blah blah blah. But seriously who is going to wade through this when it is just overcomplicating rather simple concepts and adding nothing new?

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the last one? The one that states one position's lost value is absorbed by the positions to their right that will have an opition to act? Ive never seen that anywhere before, so I think it is certainly *something new*.

As to the first point (keep it simple), that's what I was trying to do. I tried to make the statements as simple and straight forward as I could, which was hard, because the situations they are encompassing are quite complex. I agree, they should be more user friendly to get more responses...Im really trying, I am. Logic statements seem simple to my brain.

As to the second part (this is nothing new) I really, really disagree. If trying to quantify the value of positions is the same old stuff, I can't find anything on it.

But, I do really appreciate your attempt to go through it and provide constructive feedback. Youre really the only person to do so, and I really appreciate it.

[Isura]

You seem to be somebody that thinks that poker is more complicated than it really is. A corollory of this is that you probably also think that you play better than you do.

[Misanthrope]

[ QUOTE ]

When one position opens the pot (bets first), every position with greater position value loses effective value as a result

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? How does someone betting before you reduce your "effective value" compared to someone limping?

[ QUOTE ]

You seem to be somebody that thinks that poker is more complicated than it really is. A corollory of this is that you probably also think that you play better than you do.

[/ QUOTE ] a corollory of which is that Isura is a condescending dick. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[flubsy]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be somebody that thinks that poker is more complicated than it really is. A corollory of this is that you probably also think that you play better than you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could've just said, "my mommy's smarter than your mommy" Isura. If your goal was to condescend without any real substance. You didn't have to bust out with words like "corollary".

I think poker is both simple and complicated.

I think new theories about poker, and any other evolutions to the game or people's understanding of the game is great. Afterall, where would poker be if Skalansky had never written theories on the subject?

I think the fact that there are theories on value/equity for everything from bluffing to phil helmuth's tournament skill; but NOT position, is an oversight.

Really, is this what you want to do, Isura? Shut people down and condescend that any ideas they express means they suck at cards?

[poincaraux]

[ QUOTE ]
Really, is this what you want to do, Isura? Shut people down and condescend that any ideas they express means they suck at cards?

[/ QUOTE ]

<ul type="square">[*] I haven't yet read your OP, but the fact that you're willing to think about something and have the attention span to write long posts like the ones in this thread is probably a good thing.
[*] I'm pretty sure Isura means well. There's a lot of complicated stuff behind poker (witness the book that Jerrod Ankenman and Bill Chen are writing), but a lot of the basics are really easy. For what it's worth, I know for a fact that I meet both of Isura's standards, slightly reformulated: I think that the things I need to learn right now about poker are more complicated than they are, and I'm sure that I think I'm a better player than I actually am. I'm working on both of these.
[*] In the end, the proof is in the pudding. If you figure out something really important, it'll make you money, whether Isura says you're silly or not. If you focus on the wrong things, you'll lose money, whether you think Isura's a condecending thug or not.
[*] OK, I read over your posts. I think they do sound a bit overcomplicated. On the one hand, that doesn't matter. One really important thing is figuring out a consistent framework with which to view poker and make decisions. If you can find one that works for you, and then tweak it as you learn more about the game, you'll probably be ahead of most players.

On the other hand, it matters a lot. You should strive to make things as simple as possible, such that they still work. This is true for quite a few reasons. Here are a couple:

1) The simpler your framework, the easier it will be for you to use, modify and think about. Too complicated, and it's effectively useless. Trust me, you can leave out a *lot* of detail, even to the point where you can get things a little wrong, and still get almost everything right. You can build a lot of [censored] with Newton's laws, classical mechanics and classical E&amp;M, even though modern physics will tell you that you're wrong.

2) It's always easier to make things more complicated if they don't work. I don't spend most of my time thinking about poker. Rather, I spend it doing things like mathematical modeling of biological systems. Biological systems are really damn complicated, and the only way people get anything useful done is by being really smart at figuring out just how much they can get away with ignoring.[/list]
Sorry this doesn't actually address any of the points in your OP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[mjws00]

Even more important is what is the IMPLIED POSITIONAL EQUITY I am adding for seat 4 if I raise 3.75BB under the gun?

Can we express it mathematically and does it approach zero if I increase the raise? Does it mean the button has an ace and the positional EV to steal? Does this mean I should fold KK preflop?

Somethings when quantified become meaningless. I am sure you can come up with a number to the extent of 'on average over 5 billion hands on party while playing at a full table the value of being closer to the button is (x). When seat 3 and 4 have folded the value of being on the button increases by (y) based on these assumptions....."

But the fish is in seat 4. How does this help you take his money? Position gives us an edge because we have more information than our opponents. It is that simple.

But to quantify it you must take in to account. Each player. Each hand they have played in a lifetime. Your skill relative to them. Their current mindset and 'gear'. Your capacity to use that information effectively. Then you have to randomize it with assumptions about their hand, and every hand from every player at the table. How can you even simulate the value of position? Even if we can come up with a number for a single circumstance, on the next hand and at the next table it has changed. If the information is so generic as to be... The button is worth 1BB more if there are two folds and one limper it has essentially lost its value.

You've thought about this. It's an interesting topic. Make a single point about position that goes beyond the fundamentals. If you want participation you'll have to use plain English. Simple is goot.

[flubsy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really, is this what you want to do, Isura? Shut people down and condescend that any ideas they express means they suck at cards?

[/ QUOTE ]

<ul type="square">[*] I haven't yet read your OP, but the fact that you're willing to think about something and have the attention span to write long posts like the ones in this thread is probably a good thing.
[*] I'm pretty sure Isura means well. There's a lot of complicated stuff behind poker (witness the book that Jerrod Ankenman and Bill Chen are writing), but a lot of the basics are really easy. For what it's worth, I know for a fact that I meet both of Isura's standards, slightly reformulated: I think that the things I need to learn right now about poker are more complicated than they are, and I'm sure that I think I'm a better player than I actually am. I'm working on both of these.
[*] In the end, the proof is in the pudding. If you figure out something really important, it'll make you money, whether Isura says you're silly or not. If you focus on the wrong things, you'll lose money, whether you think Isura's a condecending thug or not.
[*] OK, I read over your posts. I think they do sound a bit overcomplicated. On the one hand, that doesn't matter. One really important thing is figuring out a consistent framework with which to view poker and make decisions. If you can find one that works for you, and then tweak it as you learn more about the game, you'll probably be ahead of most players.

On the other hand, it matters a lot. You should strive to make things as simple as possible, such that they still work. This is true for quite a few reasons. Here are a couple:

1) The simpler your framework, the easier it will be for you to use, modify and think about. Too complicated, and it's effectively useless. Trust me, you can leave out a *lot* of detail, even to the point where you can get things a little wrong, and still get almost everything right. You can build a lot of [censored] with Newton's laws, classical mechanics and classical E&amp;M, even though modern physics will tell you that you're wrong.

2) It's always easier to make things more complicated if they don't work. I don't spend most of my time thinking about poker. Rather, I spend it doing things like mathematical modeling of biological systems. Biological systems are really damn complicated, and the only way people get anything useful done is by being really smart at figuring out just how much they can get away with ignoring.[/list]
Sorry this doesn't actually address any of the points in your OP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything you wrote, and thank you. Im not really doing this to make more money. Increasing my winrate is about improving the basics, I agree.

Im doing this to improve the game as a whole. To build. I know that sounds like an overly ambitious goal; but is it really so much different than the kid that says he wants to win the WSOP ME? or the one that says he wants to make $1mill before he's 30? Knowing what I want out of poker *is* what makes me a winning player- of this I am sure. And where some want fame or money, I want grace. The money is just necessary for it to actually be poker we're playing.

But even that is a far off goal. Here's the original post simplified:

1. Position has a value that can be quantified;

2. You can have enough value to your position to conceivably have the equivalent value of a better position (so, you can be in MP, but for all intents and purposes be the cutoff, even with three people to act after you.)

3. When a position loses value, it's value doesn't just disappear, the other players get a shot to add it to their own position's value. (An example of this is raising from the CO to steal the button. The button folds, and so their value = 0; and now the person to the right of you absorbs that position; they now have the power to be last to act.)

[dalerobk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[
3. When a position loses value, it's value doesn't just disappear, the other players get a shot to add it to their own position's value. (An example of this is raising from the CO to steal the button. The button folds, and so their value = 0; and now the person to the right of you absorbs that position; they now have the power to be last to act.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that all you're saying is that the person last to act has a positional advantage throughout the hand. Everyone knows this and understands the importance of this.

I guess my question is: what exactly do you have to say about position that has something new to add? I'm not trying to be an ass either. I'm truly being sincere.

Try not to get caught up in the great style of your post and worry more about substance. What is the substance of your post? I really don't get it. It seems like you're trying to find a rounder wheel.