Taking sides on the table

[benkahuna]

I've started doing more live game play lately and noticed an interesting phenomenon.

It seems like one side ends up being a fair amount looser than the other (often perception as one extreme player can skew things dramatically). As a result, you often have one side mumbling/complaining/critiquing the other. You end up naturally taking sides and naturally, implicitly rooting for your side.

I think part of the reason this phenomenon occurs more easily is that the dealer cuts the table in two and I've certainly felt this phenomenon occurring more when I was one of the people sitting next to the dealer.

I haven't given a great deal of consideration on how to exploit this phenomenon except that I think it would be wise to be on the other side of the table of the most obviously exploitable player. Usually someone very loose, probably aggressive in no limit and more passive in limit (aggressive would work too, but it's less common, at least at 6-12 where I've played lately).

Anyone else notice this phenomenon? Anyone else given some thought to how one could work this naturally-occurring divisiveness to their own advantage?


I should probably state that I also think humans have natural divisive tendencies. I think these tendencies helped to create and preserve self-identity and lead to all of our divisive notions like nationality, race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation (many of these notions which magnified divisive feelings). It's because humans have this sort of compare and contrast tendency going all the time that I think table divisions occur. Why they occur is much less important to this discussion than whether they occur and what to do about them, however. If you want to get into the why, please start a new thread in Science, Philosophy, etc.

[Kaeser]

I've noticed this as well but not all the time and not at every table. When I've seen it occur it has usually involved a loose/lively player sitting down at a passive table. The side the live player sits at tends to lighten up while the other side seems to get even tighter in response.

I'm not sure how you'd take advantage of this except of course to remain aware of it and its effects on your table dynamics. Obviously you could play a more speculative hand up front knowing that you'll get plenty of callers from the loose side and raise more into the tight side but that's nothing new.

[darydarling]

I have noticed this phenomenon as well and discussed it with a friend a few months back.

I have also seen this occur in other strange places in life...like on amusement park rides.

There becomes this instant camaraderie, and a division of teams...one specific ride was the swinging boat at Six Flags Over Texas.

One side would yell something as they went into the air, the other side would yell something different...it became a contest, a challenge.

When playing live I kind of welcome this phenomenon. The reason being is because it usually means people are having fun, they are interested in the game, but only at a purely entertainment level.

I have seen complete strangers cheeer complete strangers on their side of the table because the money stayed on their side, only for the other side to do the same 15 minutes later when their side took down a pot.

I usually just sit back and watch, maybe fuel the rivalries with a barb here, a barb there. But most importantly just make sure everyone is laughing it up, and no one is taking it too serious.

The games become real lively. And as I said, they are intersted in the game which keeps the lively ones at the table longer.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like one side ends up being a fair amount looser than the other (often perception as one extreme player can skew things dramatically). As a result, you often have one side mumbling/complaining/critiquing the other. You end up naturally taking sides and naturally, implicitly rooting for your side.

I think part of the reason this phenomenon occurs more easily is that the dealer cuts the table in two and I've certainly felt this phenomenon occurring more when I was one of the people sitting next to the dealer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure about how to take advantage, but here some musings as to why this may occur:

I agree that a division is implicit because of the dealer. It is very difficult for seats 1-2 to converse with seats 9-10, let alone determine what their actions are. For this reason, players typically move away from these seats when given the opportunity. This leads towards newer players left in these low-in-demand seats. Personally my favourite seats are 3 and 8, as these give the best view of the table (7 and 4 aren't bad either). When I'm in these seats, I may an effort to chat up as many players as possible. I also find that the best conversation occurs between seats 2-4 and 7-9 because of their ability to see each other and be in vocal range. I have a hard time making any conversation across the table because I practically have to yell to do so. So we have a technical conversational gap between the table.
Now, the key to the vocal action at the table lies within the social skills of the yet to be mentioned seats 5 and 6. These players generally have the ability to converse with most of the table but least easily with each other, as either person cannot see the other. If 5 or 6 can bring 1 and 10 into their conversation, then the division of the table is small, but if the 5 and 6 seats are quiet, then the table as a whole will be very quiet as well.

[Lash]

I think you make some interesting observations about this “taking sides” (table cut in half) phenomenon. I’m sure there are some aspects of it that are exploitable, however I think there is a related, yet more important and valuable relationship that can be exploited… That relationship is the one you have with the two players to your left and the one player to your right.

Position typically plays a huge roll in confrontations with these three players. You are missing out on opportunities if you avoid building a relationship with them on some level. If I were to take the time to analyze exploiting relationships at the poker table, it would be with these three players. I think that leads to questions regarding how far you are willing to go to exploit your neighbors…what tactics, what is ethical, and how to conceal your true agenda etc…

[benkahuna]

I'm a generally nice, joking, friendly guy that plays tight aggressively in the low limit games in which I play. These matters sort of take care of themselves to my benefit as a result. I have considered starting to move positions to take advantage of this trend. I'm thinking move near the tough players and be friendly to make things a little easier.

Being friendly seems to make things easier with many players, but it doesn't work with the best players.

It seems to make a much bigger difference in NL which people are more apt to get excited about and take things personally. In limit, it seems like people don't mind losing a few bets.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking move near the tough players

[/ QUOTE ]

Doing this will cause you to be involved in more hands with these players, which is probably worse for you than the advantage you might be able to gain by befriending them.

[benkahuna]

I've found the opposite to occur. Why would moving toward them cause me to be involved in more hands with them? Are you thinking specifically of moving to get position on the them? I think I missed an assumption or two here.

[ QUOTE ]
I've found the opposite to occur. Why would moving toward them cause me to be involved in more hands with them? Are you thinking specifically of moving to get position on the them? I think I missed an assumption or two here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason is position. Both of you will be playing more hands in late position and from the blinds, and you will more often be in late position with these players, and in the blinds when these players are in late position (or vice versa). I prefer to sit across the table from tough players, so as to reduce the probable number of pots in which we will both hold cards.