Table selection; where do you sit

[kt421]

Home game. 7 players. Most of the players are loose-passive PF but tighten up post-flop. They go too far with marginal hands, then lay them down to one bet. One guy is a very solid player. One guy is a maniac; he'll periodically play entire hands blind raising the whole way. He is very L-A PF, but tends to check-call draws to the river then fold to one bet if he doesn't improve.

Where do you want to be sitting?

[J.R.]

solid player to your left, maniac to either your immediate right (although to the left presents strategic advantages as well), loose passives on your right

[edtost]

most important: maniac on right
kinda important: lp's to his right or in between the two of you
















tiebreaker: solid player on your left.

[edtost]

oh, and read this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=smallholdem&Number=1567311 &page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=all). some of bison's best work.

[kt421]

Thanks for the link.

I had little ability to influence the seating in this case. I ended up to the immediate right of the maniac, two to the right of the solid player. There were some advantages, in that if I bet out, I could count on a raise to my left, which sometimes drove the solid player (and some of the others) out of hands he/they may otherwise have played. I typically did this with hands that I considered marginal against a bigger field.

If I had big hands, I could check with little fear of it being checked around. I let the maniac do the betting and pot building for me.

Anyway, it seemed to be a good spot. Yet both responses say that I should have wanted the maniac to my right. (With a nod to potential strategic advantages of what actually happened, from J.R.) Curious as to the rationale - thanks!

[crunchy1]

A lot of times you can't choose your seat. In these situations it becomes just as important to know how to reverse this relative positional disadvantage and use it to your advantage.