|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|