Disagree with Ciafonne on seat position???

[Gregg777]

Ciafonne calls the seat to the immediate left of the LAG as the "Death Seat".

http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/a...ciaffone01.htm

I understand his reasoning, but I still completely disagree, preferring the regular concept of left of the LAG, and right of tight (preferrably passive), when possible.

Reason 1: LAG will loosen up the entire table, so being to the right will give you better position on the field.

I don't see this as much as I would like. Instead, I still see only 1 or 2 callers. And even if there were more, I would move an extra seat or two to the left if I was concerned with position on the field (I play 6 max). This would still keep me to the left of the LAG and some position on the field.

Reason 2: Position on someone who bets a lot is not as important as position on someone less predictable.

In other words, someone who doesn't bet as much. I keep count of solid tricky players, and because of my tight aggressive play, we rarely play hands against each other, yet I play regularly against the LAG. Again, not an advantage.

Reason 3: Tough poker decisions with marginal hands against a large field.

I'm not looking to be in that situation very often. But I am looking to be in position, heads up, against the LAG in many hands.

Does anyone agree with Ciaffone here?

[benfranklin]

It depends [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Another view (from HOH? Don't have it with me) is that you want a normal LAG on your right for all the standard reasons, but you want a super-LAG on your left.

In addition to the reasons Ciaffone mentions, if the super-LAG is betting/raising everything, the table will start to discount his hands, and call with hands they normally would not. This puts you in a great position to get the max from your monsters. You check to the super-LAG, he bets, and several opponents call. You can then raise, and most of the callers, with a bet already in the pot, will call you. They would have folded to an initial raise from you.

And as Ciaffone alludes to, with a super-LAG to your left, you have the virtual button in most situations.

Perhaps more to the point, you usually don't have a choice, you just have to live with the LAG being where he is. Especially online, and most especially in S&Gs. So you need to understand the pros and cons of each situation, and adjust your play accordingly.

[Louie Landale]

There is some merit to isolating the maniac since you can gain multiple bets with marginal hands later. But 3-betting marginally with this in mind requires the rest of the table to cooperate: nobody is coming for 3 or making it 4 bets without a premium hand.

I think that's asking too much. Having the maniac on your left means you act last on almost all betting rounds. Finding out what the opponents are going to do is before you decide on your marginal hand is worth a lot.

- Louie

[Onaflag]

[ QUOTE ]
with a super-LAG to your left, you have the virtual button

[/ QUOTE ]

I like that.

Onaflag............

[The_Bends]

I think this depends on whether you're playin limit or NL. I don't play much Limit so I'll leave that analysis to others but when theres a superLAG at the table he's the player I'm trying to get money off. The best position to take his stack from is behind him so I want him on my right every time.

[disjunction]

Almost every time I lose, it is with an LAG to my right and a calling station to my left, and I find myself caught in the middle.

My current hypothesis is that I need to tighten up, and assume the pot will be multiway. Thus, if the guy to my right raises any ace and other stuff, maybe don't reraise with ATo. I haven't worked the numbers, though.