Theoretical game selection question.

[durron597]

Imagine you open up a 10-handed SnG table (to sit down), and you see 7 players already there. 6 total fish, and one really solid player. Oddly enough, the remaining three seats are to the immediate left, immediate right, and directly across from the solid player. What do you do?

[Bremen]

Personally I'd rather not have to deal with situations where the blinds are left HU so I voted for across.

[SlowStroke]

Very interesting question.

I'd like to sit to his right.

1) I'd expect to play more pots with weak players, I want weak players to my right.

2) If he is solid, he will play fewer hands, I want tighter players to my left.

3) If he is solid, he should respect my raises. I hate to raise and have a player call behind me, then I have to play a raised pot out of position. A solid player to my left will fold more often.

Yes, when we do play a pot together, he will have position on me. But that should be the exception, not the rule.

Win pots from the weak players, avoid the solid players.

[durron597]

Is anyone else surprised that the answers are so evenly distributed?

[Cry Me A River]

[ QUOTE ]
Is anyone else surprised that the answers are so evenly distributed?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

You're a pitcher facing Barry Bonds. Do you A) Give him nothing anywhere near the strike zone (intentional walk in not so many words) B) Curve balls, breaking balls, change-ups, knuckle balls and try to get him swinging C) Go head to head with him with your best fastball?

Now answer that question if you're Nolan Ryan, Charles Bender, Mordecai Brown or Gaylord Perry...

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

Now answer that question if you're Nolan Ryan, Charles Bender, Mordecai Brown or Gaylord Perry...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea who most of these people are... but I see your point.

[lorinda]

I'm also surprised that the answers are so even.

I tried all options back in the Paradise days, just to see and concluded (although I'm by no means 100% sure of this) that just avoiding the guy is the best way and I always sit opposite now.

I don't want to be playing pots against the best player on the table, so I keep my distance.

I definately don't want to be on their right, I want them to fold before I start stealing later on.

Lori

[Phill S]

ive been playing a few regular players on ladbrokes of late, so getitng to know a few big names and then choosing where to sit has been a consideration. ive tried a few places, but maye its just my aggressive nature - or there passive tendancies - i havent noticed a huge difference.

i chose sitting on his left, because thats what everyone says right?

however i think the reality is that sitting opposite is best for the reason (lori basicly set this thought up in my head):
a, you dont want to make steals into a good player - he can make a resteal just as much as he can come over the top with AA - so his right is out
b, if hes good he will prolly steal from CO as much as the button. so just when you were about to hit that raise button with A8, too late - so his left doesnt make sence
c, so finally you sit across from him. you carve up one side of the table, he does the other side over and you hope you dont confront one another for a while (HU preferably). whats important is in a tough game with many seeing the higher levels, you should steal from either side of one another and its only when you have a big hand you put the raise in from mid table.

nice question, i like this thread a lot.

Phill

[SlowStroke]

Maybe if you rephrase the question the answer will be clearer.

Rather than think about where you want to sit relative to one good player - ask yourself where do you want to sit relative to SIX bad players.

I want to sit on their left - therefore I want to sit to the right of the good player.

[durron597]

The primary reason I had for putting the 6 other bad players on the table is that if the table was empty save for one good player, you wouldn't sit at all. I was hoping to provoke the very few (in fact zero!) responses for finding another table. If you opened a $200+15 table and only saw strassa2 or Frozen_Fish (or many other names on this site, I don't feel like making a really long list and besides I don't know all your names anyway), you would go play somewhere else.

But it's interesting that one very good player is not enough to get you to play somewhere else. I wonder if three players would be? That way you know that likely you are going to have a tough situation on the bubble.

As to the question at hand: I think I have to go with across, for the reason that (as other posters have said) you don't want to be involved in blind battles with this player. It doesn't even matter in what way the bad players are bad; there are correct strategies for handling weak-tighties and other correct strategies for handling LAGs, from either side of them.

What you don't want is a situation where you openraise from the SB with A9 or something and the BB moves in on you. Against a LAG, you can often make this call with a clear conscience, because so often he has a weak ace or a small PP or a biggish king. Against a weak-tight, you can easily fold. But against the strong player, he might be restealing, and he might have a hand. You are very strongly tempted to make a loose call for all your chips, but since it's close, you probably don't. So sitting on the good player's right is bad.

Sitting on his left is similarly risky because he will be trying to steal just like you are, except that since he's on your right he will often take many of the good steal opportunities away from you. And going for the resteal is always risky because you are restealing against a range of hands which does include premium hands, and you can very easily get unlucky.

Sitting across the table from him seems (to me) to solve all these problems.