Choose your seat (complex)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A loose-passive is a lot different than a tight-passive. You ALWAYS want a loose-passive on your right. Tight-passives go on the left.


[/ QUOTE ]

Passive players, loose or tight, can go anywhere. What they do is call because that's just what they like to do, call. It's aggressives that we want such position. Tight on our left and loose on our right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree.

Let's say you have one of each type; Tight-passive, tight-aggressive, loose-passive and loose-aggressive. It matters very much where the passives go. Who wants the LAG or TAG isolating the LPP? No One. You want tight people on your left and loose people on your right....bottom line.

Ideally, you also want someone passive on your left (so you don't keep getting punished on your raises) but you don't want the loose guy there because other players will be iso-raising him instead of you. You also don't want a LAG on your left because even though he's loose, you won't have position on him often enough to capitalize and your hands will be very difficult to play.

That being said, optimal table arrangement for the 5 players (including us) listed above would be as follows:

Seat 1 - LAG
Seat 2 - LP
Seat 3 - US
Seat 4 - TP
Seat 5 - TAG

This table layout is not my opinion. It's an irrefutable truth...as the money in a poker game always flows clockwise.

[TStoneMBD]

i dont buy it our house. money doesnt flow clockwise in these games. it flows reverse clockwise imo. i know this goes against traditional logic and theory but the money i make comes from blind steal situations, not from raising limpers in these aggressive games.

Oh my. Unless you really like controversy and getting flamed by lots of people, delete that post.

[B Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
30/60 game and youre about to sit down.

seat 1 is the worst player at the table. not too fishy but hes sorta dumb. misses bets, is predictable etc.

seat 2 is a highly aggressive player but he is a little too loose and is a poor handreader often making bad call downs.

seat 3 plays well preflop but is passive postflop

seat 4 is 46/12/1 over 39 hands.

seat 5 is a winning player but hes tight passive. he makes some stupid chases sometimes though with flop peels and never bluffs. he likes to call down alot.


if you could sit anywhere between these players where would it be?

[/ QUOTE ]

A few thoughts:

One of the things I haven't seen talked about in this thread is something Bob T mentioned a while back about First Right of Isolation. If we sit anywhere but between 1 and 2, we're giving that up on the worst player on the table.

If we sit between 2 and 3 we've got that on the two worst players on the table. Simply from a "having position on bad players" prespective, that seems like the best.

If you're sitting there, you're stealing against a passive player and a virtual but likely too loose unknown. This seems like a decent spot.

[DeathDonkey]

Agreed, I make all my money isolating fishes. Blind steals work both ways and I have to steal enough to get back what they steal from me. Isolating fishes there is no recourse.

-DeathDonkey

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont buy it our house. money doesnt flow clockwise in these games. it flows reverse clockwise imo. i know this goes against traditional logic and theory but the money i make comes from blind steal situations, not from raising limpers in these aggressive games.

[/ QUOTE ]

It flows clockwise has for years and will for years to come. Seems like you are trying re-invent the wheel in this thread.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
You want tight people on your left and loose people on your right....bottom line.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh we don't disagree all that much but the importance of where the aggressives go outweighs the passives. We can't always have perfect situations and the passive can be spread out as a wise man once said to me, "don't worry about the callers, worry about the betters/raisers."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You want tight people on your left and loose people on your right....bottom line.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh we don't disagree all that much but the importance of where the aggressives go outweighs the passives. We can't always have per situations and the passive can be spread out as a wise man once said to me, "don't worry about the callers, worry about the betters/raisers."

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, as an extreme example, take a table with you, 4 LPPs and one TAG. You don't want the TAG on your right, ever. You want him on your left even though he's the one with the most aggression. What's he gonna do, isolate YOU?? Clearly that's not the most profitable thing for him, no?

You want to be the one doing the isolating of the fish. What good is it to have LPPs at the table if you never get to play most of your hands because the TAGs and LAGs keep forcing you to play for 2 or 3?

HAHA...

Just sat down to play. 2nd hand I get 87o in the SB. Two loose limpers and TAG raises OTB so I can't complete.

Flop is T96r.

Beauty.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
TAG raises OTB so I can't complete.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unclick autopost.