Position Schmosition?

Is position really that important? Or is it overrated, especially in limit games? Well, I have historically had mixed feelings on this topic, but I have leaned towards thinking that position IS quite important, even in limit games. I think that position is MORE important when you are playing against players who are tight, play well, and/or are capable of folding a hand. When you are playing against mostly calling stations, I feel that position is not especially important, especially in passive games. You will have to make the best hand either way, so being first or last is not nearly so important.


Now in this particular hand I am posting, position made a big difference. I was able to win a pot that I probably wouldn't have won had I not been "in position". Here it is…


I am in EP and raise first in with AcQs. It is folded to the button, who cold calls. His cold call could mean anything, he is quite loose pre-flop. The SB reraises and the button and I call. 3 players, 6 bets. The SB is a fairly decent playing lady. She is too loose, but plays pretty well anyway. She makes too many calls BTF, but when she raises or reraises BTF, she shows down a hand. When she reraised me, I was 80% certain that she had QQ-AA or AK, but there are a few other hands she might reraise with, perhaps TT-JJ or maybe even AQs.


The flop was 8 high rags with two diamonds. SB bet out and I called, button folded. My thoughts at the time were that I would call for one bet, but fold on the turn if I did not improve. I am not really sure that this was a good call, in hindsight, I probably should have folded. However, I called and we saw the turn….


Turn was another 8, no diamond. The SB checked to me. Now I was certain that she did not have a big pair, but rather she had AK or AQ. I thought there was a reasonable chance of her folding if I bet, so I bet. She called.


The river was another blank, the 5h. She checked to me again. Here, I felt that I would almost certainly get her to fold, or at least have a good enough chance to justify a bluff, so I bet. She folded. She probably folded at least a tie, if not the winner. The fact that I had position over her allowed me to win a pot that I would otherwise have lost. Had I been first to act, I would have certainly folded on the flop, and if not, definitely on the turn (if she bet again). But my position allowed me to have the upper hand, and therefore control over the hand, which allowed me to win the pot.


Comments welcome


Dave in Cali

I think this is one of the most bogus axioms in poker, worded here by Dave, but it could have come straight from a book or mag, "When you are playing against mostly calling stations, I feel that position is not especially important, especially in passive games. You will have to make the best hand either way, so being first or last is not nearly so important."


Whatever happened to maximizing winners and minimizing losers? Doesn't this advise succumb to "win the pot" syndrome?


Let's say we were able to run zillions of trials (in real life) like this:


1) Flush draw, out of position


a) hit the expected number of times


b) miss the expected number of times 2) Flush draw, last to act


a) hit the expected number of times


b) miss the expected number of times


I think the net results of 2 would far surpass 1. Far.


Tommy

"I think the net results of 2 would far surpass 1. Far."


I don't know if I would go this far, but I am sure that being "in position" would clearly be more profitable. I think that the degree of separation would probably depend on the exact opponents and the generalized tone of the game. When you are against aggressive opponents, especially if the game is somewhat tight, I could see 2:1 being very realistic. however, in a loose passive game, I doubt that the ratio would be very close to 2:1, probably more like 1.2:1. It's all guesses, neither of us has exact figures here, but it's good debate anyway.


I don't really feel that I was trying to advocate "win the pot syndrome" here, but rather, when you are playing against loose passive opponents, you will have to make the best hand to win, no matter what your position. Because of this, I feel that position is less important in loose passive games. I am not advocating that it is UNIMPORTANT though. The title of this post was supposed to draw debate and get people either agreeing or disagreeing with me.


By the way Tommy, you did an excellent job of disagreeing with me here. This kind of writing gets my respect, even if you don't agree with me.


Dave in Cali

Me: "I think the net results of 2 would far surpass 1. Far."


Dave: "I don't know if I would go this far, but I am sure that being "in position" would clearly be more profitable."


I don't see much difference between "clearly" and "far surpass."


"I think that the degree of separation would probably depend on the exact opponents and the generalized tone of the game. When you are against aggressive opponents ..."


Dave? The purpose of the "zillion trials" concept was that ALL game situations would be repeated over and over and over, thereby distilling the specifics away from the grander issue.


One way I look at it is this. If I flop a good draw from the BB after no raise, I feel like it's a wasted opportunity compared to the same hand/flop on the button.


Another aspect is that drawing hands often turn into pairs, and here is where it's even more critical to be betting last, in order to win more and lose less than from up front.


So, yeah, we only disagree as to the degree. In practice, the effect for me is that I simply do not play suited connectors out of position. Looking at each instance, it might not look like a big deal. But added up, it means I'm constantly reinforcing a snug image by mucking preflop in situations that are at best even money for me. And, added up, it means I'm more and more like that guy in AC, the one who, "always seemed like he was betting last and being checked to."


Tommy

Dave,


I cannot emphasize enough how important I feel position is. I have written an extended essay on this which I will be posting within the next week or so here or in medium stakes. I need to finish editing it.


For now, I will simply say that I do not believe there are very many hands that have any true long term profit from early position.


I would fall into the overtight category in early and even middle position. However, I open up a lot more in late position. I am wiling to play quite a few more hands with position. Many players do not even realize this so I still get action when I raise in early position. The only ones to recognize what I am doing or understand are usually expert players from which no profit is forthcoming so it does not really matter if they know I only play monsters up front.


I only usually play the following hands in early/early middle/middle position 99, 1010, JJ, AJs, AQs, - usually limp AA,KK,QQ, - usually raise AKs, AK - depends a few others VERY VERY RARELY


By my count, this is 10 total hands, and I think even this may be too many depending on how aggressive the game is. I can easily forl AQs and AJs if the game is over aggressive.


With position, I have been known to turn hands over that makes heads spin. Will not give examples as I do not want to embarras myself. :)-


Just some thoughts...


Michael D. (Soccer/Sucker Mike D.)

One thing that you and Tommy have both pointed out is that you aren't going to have as many draws in early or middle position, because you are going to be playing far fewer hands in these positions. This is one point I cannot dispute. Because of the fact that you must fold so many more hands in early position, the number of times you flop a draw are going to be far fewer anyway. This is actually a good thing, because whether the ratio is 1.2:1 or 2:1, you are still clearly better off in late position. I actually am not advocating PLAYING draws in early position, but when the game is loose, you can loosen up your starting hand requirements A LITTLE, not a lot.


Dave in Cali

Is position really that important? Or is it overrated, especially in limit games? Well, I have historically had mixed feelings on this topic, but I have leaned towards thinking that position IS quite important, even in limit games. I think that position is MORE important when you are playing against players who are tight, play well, and/or are capable of folding a hand. When you are playing against mostly calling stations, I feel that position is not especially important, especially in passive games. You will have to make the best hand either way, so being first or last is not nearly so important.


The importance of position is directly related to the aggression and tightness in a particular game. The more aggressive a game is, the more important position becomes. The tighter a game is, the more important position becomes. Does this mean position has no importance in a low limit game? Well, if every player in the game, except you, does not bet/raise (only checks) and calls all bets, then position has zero importance. I have never seen such a game.

Dave, I agree with you. The value of position is directly related to the tightness/aggressiveness of the game. In loose, limit games you will have to show down the best hand to win and part of the value of position is lost.


However position doesn't allow you just to win pots that you normally wouldn't win. It also allows you to save bets (or earn bets) that poorer position wouldn't. And this occurs regardless of the nature of the game.

I saw such a game in the mirage about 8 months ago. I was the ONLY person in the game who was betting, at least in about 90% of the pots. One pot (where I had folded) saw seven players take the flop. Two flopped top pair and one made a straight on the river. It was checked all the way to the end. I was simply showdown poker, only I had the option to bet if I wanted to. I HATE these games. If no one bets or raises, you never have the chance to make any play other than to bet.


In most games, position is still very important, even if the game is loose and passive. however, when the game is EXTREMELY loose and very passive, position is not all that important. When the game gets aggressive or tight, position is everything.


Dave in Cali

Dave:


You said: "I don't know if I would go this far, but I am sure that being "in position" would clearly be more profitable.


Well, I'm am more than sure. I know being in position is more profitable.


You said: "I think that the degree of separation would probably depend on the exact opponents and the generalized tone of the game."


I think the Yankee's catcher used a lot statements like this once. A general statement to explain a general statement. Using generalities to justify a blanket statement that position is less important in loose/passive games is wrong IMO. Let's delve into why.


Have you ever got a big pair in early position and raised only to have 4-5 callers behind you? (And you thought to yourself "I knew I should have gone to the bathroom sooner"). How about 3 limpers to you on the button and you raise with your big pocket pair? (And you thought to yourself "Last time I was here at HP, the waitress told me her life story and said I had a nice butt, maybe I should quit and investigate"). My point? Position is a feel good situation, always.


Regards. Dale Duguid

"I think the Yankee's catcher used a lot statements like this once. A general statement to explain a general statement."


For one thing, I HATE baseball, so I don't know what the Yankee's catcher used to say, or how it applies here.


"Using generalities to justify a blanket statement that position is less important in loose/passive games is wrong IMO. Let's delve into why. "


The point wasn't to use generalities to justify another generality. The point was that position is in fact less important in loose passive games. That does not mean that it has no importance, or that it is MUCH less significant, but that it simply doesn't have quite the same significance as it would in tougher, more aggressive games. For example: In a tight aggressive game, say one where the average pot saw two or three taking the flop for two to three bets each, folding Axs UTG would be quite the reasonable play. But in a loose-passive low limit game, with an average of seven players taking the flop for rarely more than one bet each, folding Axs in ANY position when there is no raise would be silly.


My actual opinion on the matter is that position is slightly less important in loose passive games, but still makes a big difference in the end. The primary reason for this is that you can play more hands in late position, regardless of the texture of the game. You still have to fold 54s UTG, but in a loose passive game, you might be able to play it on the button.


One funny thing I noticed on this thread: No one commented on the hand I played, where my position CLEARLY had a great deal to do with how I played and what the outcome was. I purposely put this apparent contradiction into my original post (and also chose the title so as to point out the contradiction), but no one commented. Well, the post brought about good debate anyway, despite CERTAIN PEOPLE having delusions of grandeur!!!!! (just kidding).


Dave in Cali