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?