Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

I've never seen this discussed before, but a situation arose a few nights ago where I started thinking about it.

I am a loose player, seeing maybe 50% of flops often for a raise, especially in position. The player on my right is a rock who plays maybe 10% of hands outside the blinds. For the sake of argument lets suppose we have the same expected winrate.

Now if the seat to my left becomes open, it seems like it should be to the rock's benefit to take it and have position on the loose player (me). However I am happy to have him on my left, since I will rarely be in a pot with him. So it seems this change should increase both of our expectations in this game.

I think I'm correct so far. Now -- where does the gain in expectation come from? Is it really so bad for the other players in the game when the two of us swap places? Who, in particular, is likely to lose out here?

I have some ideas for answering these questions, but I'll wait and see what anyone else thinks.

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now if the seat to my left becomes open, it seems like it should be to the rock's benefit to take it and have position on the loose player (me). However I am happy to have him on my left, since I will rarely be in a pot with him. So it seems this change should increase both of our expectations in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea where you came up with this conclusion. And obviously if you two gain some mutual advantage by being in a seat because it is congruent with your playing styles then the other people at the table are the losers. Do you think expected value can just appear out of the blue?

[ QUOTE ]
Who, in particular, is likely to lose out here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The player who can't adapt.

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

If he has the choice between two empty seats, one to my left and one to my right, he should choose to sit on my left. This is accepted poker wisdom and I believe it is true here -- he will be in proportionally a lot of pots with me. Similarly it is thought that I should prefer the seat on his right.

So my question is - is this really more profitable for both of us? And if so how does having us in this configuration hurt the other players at the table? Is it really possible they will lose more money when I sit on the rock's right than vice versa?

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

No it is not more profitable for both of you. If he sits to your left, and is a good player, he will be isolating you the rest of the night. When he is on your left he can play a larger range of hands and can reraise you with these hands. This consequently should slow down your style.

Now with these isolating attempts occuring one of two things can happen to the table. The table catches on to the isolations and starts calling the raises and reraising. Causing the table to loosen up. The other result maybe that the table does not catch on to the isolations occuring and will be forced to play tighter.

So to answer your questions, 1. No it is not more profitable for both of you. 2. The seating will force the table into one of two extremes, tighter or looser.

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

I understand what you are saying and it's an interesting question.
You're gaining an advantage in that you will now have the best position more often than normal. He gains by being to the left of a LAG. But I think you lose a little by having him to your left. Before, when he enters a pot, you can throw you more marginal hands away. Now, if you enter, and he raises, you're trapped in there.
But to answer your question, if there is any gain in EV for the two of you combined, it will come from the person who left the seat to your left and now has taken the seat to your right (it may be a different person).

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

This response sounds more reasonable, as far as game theory goes. People aren't all donks. Some will adapt to the new table dynamic, and the "equilibrium," if you will, will reset.

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

[ QUOTE ]
2. The seating will force the table into one of two extremes , tighter or looser.

[/ QUOTE ]


"Forcing" the other players to ANY extreme (keyword: extreme) is virtually always a good thing; it's a huge part of what the game is all about.

Opponents who ALWAYS call SELDOM win - opponents who NEVER call NEVER win.

I'm not sure as to the validity of the rest of your response but it should be possible - at least in theory - for both you AND the player with whom you switch seats to profit from this switch. If this is so, where the [sic] "+EV suddenly appears from" is no mystery - it comes from the other players.

A (somewhat related) point worth pondering:

Certainly it's easy to imagine a situation where you are in a game where your win rate (or +EV) is increased by replacing a player with a neg. WR (-EV) with a player whose WR is positive. An even better example might be CHANGING a losing player into a winning player being benificial to [another] winning player in the game. (This would require this group play on a regular basis - such as a home game).

If you cannot picture such a scenario, try harder; I see it happen all the time.

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

I believe your point was already presupposed by RoundTower. I was giving an example of how it can be -EV. I also dont see how a good(TAG) player sitting to your left is ever going to be +EV when you play over 50% of your hands but then again not a whole lot is going to be +EV when you play that many hands.

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe your point was already presupposed by RoundTower. I was giving an example of how it can be -EV. I also dont see how a good(TAG) player sitting to your left is ever going to be +EV when you play over 50% of your hands but then again not a whole lot is going to be +EV when you play that many hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't know what the game was, the blind structure, the amount of money on the table, or the standard of the other players? Please don't tell me I must have been playing badly. Explain why you think having the rock on my left is worse than having him on my right.

FWIW I think I could play 100% of hands profitably in this game, but 50% more profitably.

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

Agreed - there's not much short of cheating that will allow you to win if your only mucking every other hand.

But the question wasn't whether switching seats would make you a winner, it was (if I understood it correctly) whether you would IMPROVE.

- BTW, I didn't notice RTs's response; I've been in and out alot the last few days and when I read the OP I have had time to read only a few responses prior to authoring my own.

If RoundTower said the same thing might I resond with . . .

nh, and happy holidays !

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

I think you both benefit. You both want tighties on your left and loosies on your right.

Now how could you go about getting the guy to switch with you in an online game? Suggesting it in the chat box is likely to upset the other players, who will likely think that whatever your're doing for your own advantage is somehow to their disadvantage.

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

Was away for a while, but I wanted to post my thoughts on answering the question.

I really don't want to discuss here whether I could play 50% of hands profitably in that poker game; I don't know what anyone is doing telling me I can't when they don't even know what game we were playing. What if the game was 3-handed? What if we were playing stud with ante = 1/2 SB? I deliberately left that information out of the OP, I don't think it's really relevant but it was a deep stacked PLO game with some bad players.

I do think switching places is beneficial for both of us, and so it must be bad for the other players at the table. To see why they lose out, suppose we were three handed with me, the rock, and a loose fishy player. Then the best configuration for the fish is to have me on his right and the rock on his left, and he will start to lose money if the two of us switch places. With more players the effect is distributed among all of them: each wants me on the right and the rock on the left, and when we switch places I am further to their left and he is further to their right. They will lose out by having position on me one less time each round, and they won't be in enough hands with him to gain the same amount by having position on the rock.

Hope this interests someone; it helped me get my thoughts straight. TomBrooks I have no idea how you could arrange this on the Internet.

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

Hi roundtree
I do agree that the placing of you and the rock do have a large affect on the entire table.

I am not a stud player by any means so this might be the issues as to why I cannot see how it helps the both of you to switch places. If you could explain how you believe it helps both of you to switch places it would be greatly appreciated. At the moment I can only see the switch harming you.

This is assuming that the tight player will now be able to attack you and isolate.
Merry Christmas

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi roundtree
I do agree that the placing of you and the rock do have a large affect on the entire table.

I am not a stud player by any means so this might be the issues as to why I cannot see how it helps the both of you to switch places. If you could explain how you believe it helps both of you to switch places it would be greatly appreciated. At the moment I can only see the switch harming you.

This is assuming that the tight player will now be able to attack you and isolate.
Merry Christmas

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify -- this was a pot limit omaha game, not stud. I don't feel isolation is an important concept in this game compared to limit or no limit hold'em, except with certain hands that play excellently headsup but usually want to be all in preflop. The deep stacks prevent that in this game.

It helps me to have this player on my right because when I am in a pot, he probably isn't. For example when I am one off the button I am likely to have position on the whole table, since he will probably fold. Having him on my right isn't that beneficial to me, I'd much rather a looser player slipped in there.

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

You're right. Everyone, loose or tight, wants loose players on his right and tight players on his left. When you shift, you get a tight player on your left, he gets a loose one on his right. The player who used to be on your left, now has a tight player instead of a loose player on his right. She loses. The player who used to be on his right, now has a loose player instead of a tight player on his left. He loses.

The only reason it seems impossible is when you're both in middle position, it doesn't seem to matter to anyone else at the table which of you acts first. Whichever order the two of you sit, everyone else at the table gets to see either both or neither of your actions before acting.

In practice, the pots might be larger with you acting first. You might call in situations when you would have folded if the tight player had acted first. In theory, it shouldn't make any difference to the average pot size, if we assume you both factor in the other's tendencies properly.

The difference to the table is the one hand per round when he is under the gun and you are big blind. Then the whole table gets a tight player acting first, with a loose player acting last.

Re: Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?
 

This just isn't true of Pot Limit Omaha against poor players. Hand values run much closer together in Omaha, and position is almost more important than your hand.

I suspect that both players would gain from switching spots. The tight player would gain the on the few hands he plays from the loose player, but the loose player would likely gain more from having another loose player on his right for all the other hands.

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed - there's not much short of cheating that will allow you to win if your only mucking every other hand.

But the question wasn't whether switching seats would make you a winner, it was (if I understood it correctly) whether you would IMPROVE.

- BTW, I didn't notice RTs's response; I've been in and out alot the last few days and when I read the OP I have had time to read only a few responses prior to authoring my own.

If RoundTower said the same thing might I resond with . . .

nh, and happy holidays !

[/ QUOTE ]