table position

[theBruiser500]

playing 3 handed, there is a bad player and a good player. do you want position on the bad player who you are trying to play all your pots with and make your money off of, or do you want it on your good player who will be very tough to face out of position 3 handed

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
playing 3 handed, there is a bad player and a good player. do you want position on the bad player who you are trying to play all your pots with and make your money off of, or do you want it on your good player who will be very tough to face out of position 3 handed

[/ QUOTE ]

...and what kind of player are you?

[Kaz The Original]

Will you having position on the bad player mean the bad player has position on the good player?

[Prevaricator]

position means acting after, so naturally it would mean that

[Kaz The Original]

Then it isn't even close, you want position on the bad player.

[bugstud]

depends on how your poor and good players play their blinds

[The Ocho]

i remember reading a great rgp discussion on this with daniel N, lederer and a bunch of other very good players. It is definitely worth digging up. I'm too busy and inept to do it right now. Sorry.

[queenhigh]

i think it depends a lot on what style of bad player they are and how deep the stacks are.

[Loci]

He's a bruiser... a helluva lot better than most of the people on here.

Bruiser- I vote that you take position on the good player and check raise the bad player whenever you can. (naturally, there are a ton of different "bad" and "good" players, but I assume that you mean that the good player is tight/aggressive, but tricky, while the bad player calls anytwo cards and runs hopeless hands to the river. If he's a calling station, then you can bet out the two out of three hands that he has position on you and still have him call your monsters down.
Good question, thanks.

[Prevaricator]

I think that we need to know what type of bad and good players there are before a decision can be made. Is he is bad because he does a lot of calling, or because he habitually bluffs?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that we need to know what type of bad and good players there are before a decision can be made.

[/ QUOTE ]

[theBruiser500]

the good player is tight agressive tricky, bad player is very loose a calling station, not too agressive but occasionally calls flop bets to take away pot on later streets

[sonicblue]

I want the tricky good guy on my right and the station on my left, and I make an effort not to go heads up with the good tricky guy.

[KaneKungFu123]

interesting

[NLSoldier]

I want position on the bad player because the vast majority of pots you enter will be against him, not the good player.

[TStoneMBD]

usually i take the bad player on my right, but in a 3 handed game i think you will find the good player taking advantage of you every time you enter a pot with the bad player. youll make more money off the bad player with position on him, but youll get yourself in trouble with the good player to your left. if the good player is to your right then the amount of times youre put in a difficult position drops significantly.

[sawseech]

position on the good player duh
and not for the reasons stated

[MonkeeMan]

I forget the exact source (either a Ciaffone or Sklansky book, I'll try to update later) but the assertion is that position is so important that if a great player and poor player were to go HU and the poor player always has position, he'll have the best of it. If this is true then I want postion on the bad player.

[MonkeeMan]

Found it! The quote is from HoH, pg. 22.

"If a world-class player were to play a heads-up session against a player of mediocre skills, but the lessor player could act last every hand, the world-class player would have the worst of it."

So I'd take position on the bad player.

[Loci]

Agreed. Good post.

[Loci]

[ QUOTE ]

"If a world-class player were to play a heads-up session against a player of mediocre skills, but the lessor player could act last every hand, the world-class player would have the worst of it."

So I'd take position on the bad player.

[/ QUOTE ]

By that same logic, wouldn't that mean that if a good player had position on Bruiser that he would certainly have the worst of it?

[TStoneMBD]

[ QUOTE ]
Found it! The quote is from HoH, pg. 22.

"If a world-class player were to play a heads-up session against a player of mediocre skills, but the lessor player could act last every hand, the world-class player would have the worst of it."

So I'd take position on the bad player.

[/ QUOTE ]

what is HoH? is that DS or BC? either way, i think that quote is bold and rather presumptious. lets say that a player is so mediocre that he is the type who bets when he has a pair, and folds when he doesnt. you could play against this player without looking at your hole cards the entire session. doyle brunson said that he used to be able to beat cash games without ever having to look at his hole cards. whether this is true or not is dependable, but it certainly should clarify that a mediocre player cannot necessarily beat a world class player simply because he has position.

i would bet $1000 that if you take a heads up specialist and place him against a holdem novice, and the novice gets the button every hand, the heads up specialist annhiliates.

[MonkeeMan]

[ QUOTE ]
what is HoH? is that DS or BC?

[/ QUOTE ]

My original post about Ciaffone or Sklansky was wrong, it's Dan Harrington from "Harrington on Hold 'em". Granted, this is a tournament book, but I don't imagine this statement is off-base for ring games.

[ QUOTE ]
i would bet $1000 that if you take a heads up specialist and place him against a holdem novice, and the novice gets the button every hand, the heads up specialist annhiliates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Bruiser is a HU specialist, nor his opponent a novice. And I don't have reason to doubt Harrington's view on this.

[MonkeeMan]

[ QUOTE ]
By that same logic, wouldn't that mean that if a good player had position on Bruiser that he would certainly have the worst of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But I would rather maintain/increase the edge I have on the poor player and try to limit my involvement with the good player to those situations where position is of less importance.

[Loci]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i would bet $1000 that if you take a heads up specialist and place him against a holdem novice, and the novice gets the button every hand, the heads up specialist annhiliates.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't think Bruiser is a HU specialist, nor his opponent a novice. And I don't have reason to doubt Harrington's view on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to stroke his ego, but Bruiser is as close to a HU specialist as you'll find in these pages. The vast majority of his posts are from short-handed or HU games.

While he barages himself with criticism daily, he plays with severe competency with the best online players. At his level, it's hard to fill a table because most of us can't afford the buy in let alone a negative swing or bad beat. IMO, he is capable of annihilating the bad player from any position, and he will be safer trying to take out the good player from the back.

[kagame]

bruiser isnt asking for advice for himself specifically, lets try to address this in a more theoretical manner, shall we?

all i really have to contribute is the following:

you dont need position on passive players, you need position on aggressive players; however, against a good player having position becomes less effective, and against a bad player having position is obviously exponentially more effective with how bad they are.

is there some way we could quantify the two variables (aggression and skill), and come up with a tipping point for when having position on one vs the other is the most profitable?

[Loci]

The Bruiser said in his follow up post:
[ QUOTE ]
the good player is tight agressive tricky, bad player is very loose a calling station, not too agressive but occasionally calls flop bets to take away pot on later streets


[/ QUOTE ]

He is actually referring to a specific table/set of players. Does that help your decision?

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bruiser said in his follow up post:
[ QUOTE ]
the good player is tight agressive tricky, bad player is very loose a calling station, not too agressive but occasionally calls flop bets to take away pot on later streets


[/ QUOTE ]

Does tricky guy play a lot of big pots against you? If so, you want position on him.

If the two of you are pretty much avoiding one another while fleecing the chump, then you want position on the chump.

[TStoneMBD]

makes sense to me.

[Voltron87]

Since we're 3 handed, I would say I want position on the good player.

[Loci]

GP