[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First pic was my little trick.

I'm not sitting at that table; I can't control it. The 30/5 guys are a little too loose, but generally have an idea about how to play post-flop. Seat 3 = Seat 4 and they both suck. Anyway, that was just me showing how meticulous I am with table selection (probably bordering on insanity, but that's not the first time I have been accused of being delusional).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the seats are all that bad. Seats 3 and 4 will allow you to isolate hyper-LAG in seat 1. The 17/9 in seat 2 isn't going to be able to isolate 100% of the time, and you'll be next in line to isolate him. Also, if seat 2 is isolating with weaker hands, you can get some real poker going by capping him with hands slightly stronger than his, because he's not going to want to play between a hyper-LAG and a tightish preflop capper. And once you get HU with hyper-LAG, you can just call down and collect the dead money in the pot.

Seat 7 offers you some chances to play drawing hands because your realitve position to hyper-LAG is great for pot-building.

Are they optimal? Nope. But they look like spots where you can still play fairly profitably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that I am back in town, I'll catch up on this thread.

Basically the major thrust of the article was emphasizing the aspect of control over the table in selecting where to play optimally. In the first example, you certainly can make money (and especially if the 17/9 is a sucky TAG). However, many players wouldn't be able to exert optimal control from Seat 3.

Seat 7 is dangerous because you might get trapped with a drawing hand. Example: 70 limps 30 limps (note that the 30/5s aren't usually that bad of players), you limp, TAG raises, LAG 3-bets, and TAG folds. Not the best situation for playing my QJs. Like pre-flop charts, there are certainly deviations and times where you would take a non-optimal seat. But, with 70,000 players playing I usually opt to find a better hole.