Having position: could it be mutually beneficial to swap places?

[RoundTower]

If he has the choice between two empty seats, one to my left and one to my right, he should choose to sit on my left. This is accepted poker wisdom and I believe it is true here -- he will be in proportionally a lot of pots with me. Similarly it is thought that I should prefer the seat on his right.

So my question is - is this really more profitable for both of us? And if so how does having us in this configuration hurt the other players at the table? Is it really possible they will lose more money when I sit on the rock's right than vice versa?

[tighterr]

No it is not more profitable for both of you. If he sits to your left, and is a good player, he will be isolating you the rest of the night. When he is on your left he can play a larger range of hands and can reraise you with these hands. This consequently should slow down your style.

Now with these isolating attempts occuring one of two things can happen to the table. The table catches on to the isolations and starts calling the raises and reraising. Causing the table to loosen up. The other result maybe that the table does not catch on to the isolations occuring and will be forced to play tighter.

So to answer your questions, 1. No it is not more profitable for both of you. 2. The seating will force the table into one of two extremes, tighter or looser.

This response sounds more reasonable, as far as game theory goes. People aren't all donks. Some will adapt to the new table dynamic, and the "equilibrium," if you will, will reset.

[ohnonotthat]

[ QUOTE ]
2. The seating will force the table into one of two extremes , tighter or looser.

[/ QUOTE ]


"Forcing" the other players to ANY extreme (keyword: extreme) is virtually always a good thing; it's a huge part of what the game is all about.

Opponents who ALWAYS call SELDOM win - opponents who NEVER call NEVER win.

I'm not sure as to the validity of the rest of your response but it should be possible - at least in theory - for both you AND the player with whom you switch seats to profit from this switch. If this is so, where the [sic] "+EV suddenly appears from" is no mystery - it comes from the other players.

A (somewhat related) point worth pondering:

Certainly it's easy to imagine a situation where you are in a game where your win rate (or +EV) is increased by replacing a player with a neg. WR (-EV) with a player whose WR is positive. An even better example might be CHANGING a losing player into a winning player being benificial to [another] winning player in the game. (This would require this group play on a regular basis - such as a home game).

If you cannot picture such a scenario, try harder; I see it happen all the time.

[tighterr]

I believe your point was already presupposed by RoundTower. I was giving an example of how it can be -EV. I also dont see how a good(TAG) player sitting to your left is ever going to be +EV when you play over 50% of your hands but then again not a whole lot is going to be +EV when you play that many hands.

[RoundTower]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe your point was already presupposed by RoundTower. I was giving an example of how it can be -EV. I also dont see how a good(TAG) player sitting to your left is ever going to be +EV when you play over 50% of your hands but then again not a whole lot is going to be +EV when you play that many hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't know what the game was, the blind structure, the amount of money on the table, or the standard of the other players? Please don't tell me I must have been playing badly. Explain why you think having the rock on my left is worse than having him on my right.

FWIW I think I could play 100% of hands profitably in this game, but 50% more profitably.

[ohnonotthat]

Agreed - there's not much short of cheating that will allow you to win if your only mucking every other hand.

But the question wasn't whether switching seats would make you a winner, it was (if I understood it correctly) whether you would IMPROVE.

- BTW, I didn't notice RTs's response; I've been in and out alot the last few days and when I read the OP I have had time to read only a few responses prior to authoring my own.

If RoundTower said the same thing might I resond with . . .

nh, and happy holidays !

[Hamlet]

This just isn't true of Pot Limit Omaha against poor players. Hand values run much closer together in Omaha, and position is almost more important than your hand.

I suspect that both players would gain from switching spots. The tight player would gain the on the few hands he plays from the loose player, but the loose player would likely gain more from having another loose player on his right for all the other hands.

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed - there's not much short of cheating that will allow you to win if your only mucking every other hand.

But the question wasn't whether switching seats would make you a winner, it was (if I understood it correctly) whether you would IMPROVE.

- BTW, I didn't notice RTs's response; I've been in and out alot the last few days and when I read the OP I have had time to read only a few responses prior to authoring my own.

If RoundTower said the same thing might I resond with . . .

nh, and happy holidays !

[/ QUOTE ]