Position / seat selection against loose aggressive players..

[Neilis]

I guess this question is mostly for Russ and it regards a passage from the most recent Harrington book, Harrington on cash.

In this book Harrington suggests that the best seat to have relative to the loose aggressive player at your table is immediately to his right. That is, you have the loose aggressive player one seat to your left.

Now granted I have never played live NL poker because there's little access to such games in Brisbane and I rarely play full ring (which I assume Harrington mostly refers to in his books) but to me this might be the most horrific piece of advice I've ever seen written in a published poker book. I'm not going to go into detail about the reasons Harrington gives on this just for the moment (or my own) but I'd like you to give me your thoughts on where you would prefer to sit relative to a loose aggressive player.

[ezplayer]

I think it's only good if you're a nit, or at least really tight. Basically, it's not too hard to trap a LAG in that situation. For everyone else, it's a real pain in the neck and you have to have two separate game plans for everyhand you want to play before you play it...mainly, what are you going to to if/when the lag raises you, and what do you want to do if the LAG doesn't play the hand.

I only way I know to nuetralize this situation is to re-raise the LAG hard 3 or 4 times in a row. Then they usually tighten up against you (but just against you) and you can resume your normal game. I would much rather have a LAG on my right.

In Harrington's defense, I think he has a reputation as playing pretty tight so maybe it's good for him.

[russ fox]

[AlamedaMike]

Russell Fox - I loved your book when I first starting playing NL in 2005 and then gave it up in 2006 (for various reasons) to switch back to limit.

I wonder if you could answer a LIMIT question or are the games too different to do that? Your expertise is NL, right?

Maybe some one can chime in if you do not know. There was a long thread on 2+2 on seating position in a live game.

As I understand it you want to use the left loose, right tight rule - that is to sit to the left of a loose player and right of a tight player?

Still true?

One time in a 20/40 LHE game a "good" player moved to my right - does that mean that if he was thinking and trying to get position he put me on the tight side?

Thanks

[Bluedaq]

Most of the time poker is brutal and ruthless in this instance I'd take his action as sign of respect and he wants nothing to do with you and not interested.

[AlamedaMike]

[russ fox]

[nsidestrate]

Peoplpe often seem to believe that if one player is winning big at the seat that the seat is somehow "lucky" and they are eager to take it. Sometimes they just feel like they are having bad luck and changing seats will change their luck. Live players are somewhat nutty.

[toronexti]

[AlamedaMike]

[jeffnc]

I'd like to weigh in to comment on Harrington and give my experience. I've played a lot in a $5/$5/$500 game that is relatively loose. A lot of Harrington's advice is based on shorthanded pots post flop (heads up or maybe 3-way). I assume based on a couple comments this is the way Russ prefers to play too.

There was a particular Laggy player in my game that gave me fits (constant raises and straddles in the $25-$50 range, and never knowing what crazy 2 pair he might flop, or river.) In this situation, I finally determined that sitting on his right was correct. I don't recall Harrington's specific reasoning, but I do remember generally agreeing with it after developing this idea on my own. It's true you have some trapping potential, but that's not the main idea with the following approach.

The idea is that in these looser multiway games, you are going to have to count in hitting some big hands (eventually) and winning some big pots to generate a lot of your profit. When multiple players are in the hand, you are playing in a "protected pot" against the "maniac". You want to know how many people are going to be in the pot, and that requires being to the maniac's right. You can limp in with practically any hand you feel like playing, watch the maniac raise, then watch the reaction of the entire table before you have to act again. In other words, you don't have absolute position on the maniac, but you have relative position. In this situation, relative position on the table trumps absolute position on the maniac.

Hands to avoid are maybe KTo and A7o. If you have a premium hand, then limp/massive-reraise the whole field and make a killing (this is not trapping the maniac per se, but it does give you a nice pot if everyone folds, and gives you a nice low SPR if you get callers so you can commit your stack - avoids all sorts of problems). If you have a small pair or suited connectors or suited broadways, then limp/call in a multiway pot or limp fold if there not enough players or multiple raises. (I've specifically avoided mentioned weak suited aces because I haven't decided what those are worth yet.) Use your relative position.

Now if you want to play heads up against the maniac, this doesn't apply and you are most likely better off being to his left to play pots with him with the advantage of position.

I'm not saying these ideas apply to limit, or shorthanded poker. (Although I think it might have some benefits in SH NL as well.)

I can't remember who - it might have been Harrington - who used this example to explain it. You observe a table in a casino where a maniac is moving all-in preflop every third hand. You decide to play after you've determined what his hand range must be, and what hands you'd like to get your stack in with against him preflop. There are 2 seats available at the table - immediately to his left and immediately to his right. Which do you take? Think about it and you will probably want the one immediately to his right. Although we now are talking about trying to play heads up, the basic concept here is the same as a described above. (Hint, your first move is always going to be to limp.)

[Scott Harker]