Three-handed position with a good player

[TStoneMBD]

thanks for the link, here is howard's response for those interested:

[ QUOTE ]
Howard Lederer Jul 10 2002, 2:23 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
From: "Howard Lederer" <howa...@lvcm.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:22:54 GMT
Local: Wed, Jul 10 2002 2:22 am
Subject: Re: Interesting position question by Daniel N...
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

"Danielnegreanu" <danielnegre...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20020709061954.22820.00002791@mb-cj.aol.com...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> I just received an e-mail asking me a question I thought you all may
want to
> tackle. My response follows:

> > if you were sitting into a 2-handed table (to make it 3-handed),
and
> Player A is an unknown player and Player B is a world-class player, where
would
> you sit? would you be on the right or left of Player B?

> Hmmm...that's a pretty tough question, but because it's short handed one
answer
> has to be correct in my opinion.

> In a three handed game, you'd be giving up too much by letting a world
class
> player be behind you. Even though you won't extract as much profit from
the
> WCP as you would the unknown, you would be losing a lot less to him by
having
> position.
> Also, since the player is 'unknown', you wouldn't exactly know how to
extract
> a lot of profit from him, regardless of your position. The true value of
> position in short handed situations is being able to exploit tendencies in
your
> opponent. You 'know' the WCP I assume, and that alone should be enough to
make
> sitting to his LEFT the better seat.

> I'm thinking that this might be a topic that a lot of people may
disagree on.
> Any thoughts?

> Daniel Negreanu
> kidpo...@hotmail.com
> www.fullcontactpoker.com

I have thought about this quite a bit. I did not want to disagree just to
disagree. But,... I disagree.

The most important hand during a round is the hand where you are the button.
You make most of your money this hand. If you sit to the left of the
unknown player, you will be the button when he is the big blind. Assuming
you raise most of the time on the button, like I would, you will find
yourself heads-up with position against the unknown player often. In fact,
most of the money that the unknown loses will be to you, trying to defend
his big blind. Of course, if he doesn't defend his big blind enough, then
you get to rob his blinds constantly. Conversely, you get to neutralize
the WCP's advantage with the button somewhat, as you will be the big blind
when he is button.

I also don't mind it when the unknown has the button. If the unknown player
raises a lot with the button, then you can pick your spots and re-raise with
your quality hands and get the WCP to fold, getting heads-up with the
unknown when you probably have him beat. If the unknown folds a lot on the
button, you should play pretty tight from the small blind, and the WCP won't
have much of an advantage against you. You will raise when you have a good
hand, and make him defend his big blind, but fold your weak hands and only
lose the small blind. In effect, he gets position on you, but he must ante
twice as much as you. This is an idea that Sklansky brought to my
attention, and I think it works in small blind vs. big blind situations.
Also, if the unknown is too tight with the button, he is probably too tight
with the big blind. This will benefit you more than the WCP.

To those that think this is a bad spot to play in, I beg to differ. If you
feel that you are a WCP yourself, then playing with an unknown and another
WCP is a fine game by my standards. I particularly like short handed, where
all the unknown's flaws will be exposed.

Howard Lederer

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with howard completely.

[tizim]

What about 3-handed with a loose passive and a LAG?

I'm thinking you'd want to be on the LAG's left because you have position on him when he's stealing from the SB, he won't be attacking your blinds from the button all the time, and the loose passive will give you lots of cheap flops when he's on the button. Anyone disagree?