Interesting position question by Daniel N...
Danielnegreanu
tackle. My response follows:
> if you were sitting into a 2-handed table (to make it 3-handed), and
Player A is an unknown player and Player B is a world-class player, where would
you sit? would you be on the right or left of Player B?
Hmmm...that's a pretty tough question, but because it's short handed one answer
has to be correct in my opinion.
In a three handed game, you'd be giving up too much by letting a world class
player be behind you. Even though you won't extract as much profit from the
WCP as you would the unknown, you would be losing a lot less to him by having
position.
Also, since the player is 'unknown', you wouldn't exactly know how to extract
a lot of profit from him, regardless of your position. The true value of
position in short handed situations is being able to exploit tendencies in your
opponent. You 'know' the WCP I assume, and that alone should be enough to make
sitting to his LEFT the better seat.
I'm thinking that this might be a topic that a lot of people may disagree on.
Any thoughts?
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
www.fullcontactpoker.com
pokermike3
raising when playing the WCP heads-up, I would be inclined to agree with
you. If he raises with just about any two, then you would be in the position
of calling two bets cold to see the flop in many cases. In the latter
scenario I would rather be on player A's left. The other thing it does is
aggravate the WCP. Not only does he lose his juicy heads-up game, but now HE
will have to call 2 cold when you play a hand.
--
Mike Minetti
"Danielnegreanu" <danieln...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020709061954...@mb-cj.aol.com...
Hamlet
and someone I don't know, I'm better off just going to my room to sober up.
"Danielnegreanu" <danieln...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020709061954...@mb-cj.aol.com...
ELD077
anyone want to court financial suicide by sitting down in a game like this.?
Talk about compulsive gamblers!!
Just in case somebody ever holds a gun on me and makes me join a game like this
I will use my usual strategy, which is to sit on the left of whoever I think is
the best player in the game [besides myself].
eldo
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
i would be inclined to sit on the unknown player's left, and then, after
spending some time watching how the unknown player reacts to the WCP's (and my
own) play, i would consider moving if necessary.
a move of that sort is commented on, so i would say something like "the glare is
less over there", or "i want a view of that TV", whatever.
sit first so you can see the unknown's decision-making more clearly
(particularly, how he is reacting to WCP when i am in or not in the pot), then
change as necessary, using a prepared excuse, as needed.
Jonathan
no matter where you go, there you are....
John Harkness
John Harkness
Lee Munzer
"Danielnegreanu" wrote ...
> In a three handed game, you'd be giving up too much by letting a world
class
> player be behind you. Even though you won't extract as much profit from
the
> WCP as you would the unknown, you would be losing a lot less to him by
having
> position.
> Also, since the player is 'unknown', you wouldn't exactly know how to
extract
> a lot of profit from him, regardless of your position. The true value of
> position in short handed situations is being able to exploit tendencies in
your
> opponent. You 'know' the WCP I assume, and that alone should be enough to
make
> sitting to his LEFT the better seat.
Seems correct, but it's a tough question to quantify for several reasons.
All WCPs are not created with equal tendencies, so not only (for awhile)
will you be unaware in what way or ways the non-WCP will be deviating from
optimum play, you won't know how his "weaknesses" mesh with the WCPs
strengths in different positions and what adaptations you will have to
make -- some may favor one position over the other. For an example of WCPs
strengths and tendencies being unequal, let's assume David Sklansky is the
WCP. If I had to play to the right of a WCP I would prefer DS to my left
than Tony D. or David Chiu.
Let's step back and see if we can find a strong enough advantage of playing
to the right of the WCP to reconsider. Button situations are interesting.
I like the fact that when playing underneath the WCP and you have the button
the WCP will be in the SB forcing him to play three bets or fold when you
raise. He doesn't have the right pot odds to call without 'something'. If
both opponents call your pre-flop raise the WCP will be in the worst
position throughout. You will gain information on both hands and often be
able to take advantage of free turn cards when needed or you are trapping.
He can't bet/move as often because the Non-WCP is still in the hand, thus
that player or you could have a hand and since (especially if the WCP bets
the flop and the Non-WCP calls) you are somewhat pot committed against one
small bet this severely weakens the WCPs "bet and take it" chances. He'll
have to rely more on check-raise tactics in those 3-way hands when he is
first to act. That's not a good thing to rely on. Since the button is
your "corner office" TM where you expect to have your greatest earn, these
strong advantages are a good thing. If the WCP starts folding too many
hands to your pre-flop raise he is erring *and* you get to play heeeeeeadsup
and in position against the Non-WCP ... a very good thing.
In addition, when you are on the button and raise (as you will:) when the
WCP calls you may be able to define his hand to a slightly better extent
(you can remove 8-3 offsuit from the random hands DS could hold).
Conversely, when the WCP is on the button you will have to make a two chip
commitment pre-flop and when you don't have a hand you will be losing two
chips versus the one he will lose when you have the button. However, your
two chip BB may often become a good thing both on the occasions he 'taps'
and get to see the flop free and when you pick up a hand and can raise, Or
assuming he raises, you can re-raise.
So, in the button comparison, to me, being to the right is a clear winner.
Of course, the button gains will be offset by the loss when neither one of
you is on the button. The WCP is a big favorite in each hand over you when
the Non-WCP has the button. If anyone needs clarification, just ask, but
it's easy to think through.
Bottom line ... you make the call. Left, to me, isn't clear any more, but
that's the way I still lean.
Lee (LLWCP Deluxe)
Russell R.
those who know better than me. In this case I agree with DN, both in
his conclusion and his reasons for reaching it.
BTW to the posts that say it depends how the unknown player plays, or
to wait and see what the unknown player does, have kind of missed the
poin of the question. Once I know how he plays he is not really an
unknown player anymore now is he?
danieln...@aol.com (Danielnegreanu) wrote in message news:<20020709061954...@mb-cj.aol.com>...
ben morris
Seriously though, even if I were a WCP, I'd have to be relatively certain
that I had a big edge on the "unknown" to play.
Despite that, I generally want people who are as good or better than me to
my immediate right, so that it's easier to avoid them. That and I think
there's a whole art to exploiting lesser opponents behind you. Game
theoretically, acting first is often an advantage if you have good
information. (For example, when he has raised preflop and you know the flop
didn't hit him, you can steal, where you might have to fold to his bet).
Aside from the strict payoff scenarios, the biggest advantage of position is
that it helps conceal your hand and gives you information about his with
every action he takes. I would think this would be more valuable against
the feared player.
ben
"Danielnegreanu" <danieln...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020709061954...@mb-cj.aol.com...
Newgca
>answer
>has to be correct in my opinion.
>
Tough question? I have answered this question many times. NO WORLD CLASS PLAYER
will allow you to get position in a short handed game.
Even if there are two people playing at the table, any WCP with any brains will
have locked the seats or the seat up in the position he wants if another player
enters the game.
Thus, he would have the option of picking which potition you would sit in.
Besides, being at the table first, he would have first choice of moving.
NEXT
So, how can this be a tough question?
Russ Georgiev new...@aol.com
Marc88
not whether the situation would ever develop. You are obviously a sreet
hustler with very limited education and a poorly developed intellect.
-Marc
"Pay him... pay that man his money"
Howard Lederer
I have thought about this quite a bit. I did not want to disagree just to
disagree. But,... I disagree.
The most important hand during a round is the hand where you are the button.
You make most of your money this hand. If you sit to the left of the
unknown player, you will be the button when he is the big blind. Assuming
you raise most of the time on the button, like I would, you will find
yourself heads-up with position against the unknown player often. In fact,
most of the money that the unknown loses will be to you, trying to defend
his big blind. Of course, if he doesn't defend his big blind enough, then
you get to rob his blinds constantly. Conversely, you get to neutralize
the WCP's advantage with the button somewhat, as you will be the big blind
when he is button.
I also don't mind it when the unknown has the button. If the unknown player
raises a lot with the button, then you can pick your spots and re-raise with
your quality hands and get the WCP to fold, getting heads-up with the
unknown when you probably have him beat. If the unknown folds a lot on the
button, you should play pretty tight from the small blind, and the WCP won't
have much of an advantage against you. You will raise when you have a good
hand, and make him defend his big blind, but fold your weak hands and only
lose the small blind. In effect, he gets position on you, but he must ante
twice as much as you. This is an idea that Sklansky brought to my
attention, and I think it works in small blind vs. big blind situations.
Also, if the unknown is too tight with the button, he is probably too tight
with the big blind. This will benefit you more than the WCP.
To those that think this is a bad spot to play in, I beg to differ. If you
feel that you are a WCP yourself, then playing with an unknown and another
WCP is a fine game by my standards. I particularly like short handed, where
all the unknown's flaws will be exposed.
Howard Lederer
boycottGCA
on, i must say that i didnt read any of the follow up posts, so i may
be repeating what someone else said..
It would be my choice to sit to the WCP's right and to the unknown's
left for a few simple reasons... there are only two positions in a
three handed game.. the blinds and the button... and in my experience
the button will raise atleast 50% of the time... makeing in 1.5 bets
to you in the small blind... if you are going to play, it is correct
to three bet it and move the big blind off the hand... therefore a
good portion of the time the WCP to your right will be a non-factor..
When it is your button, the WCP will be in the little blind and will
play less pots against you if he were in the big blind. And the
unknown is more likely to lose more chips with a mediocre hand from
the big blind when you raise from the button...
And last... when you play from the big blind, you will be protecting
your big blind in numerous situations against the WCP on the button,
who is most likely aggresive(as most WCP's are). It will be easier to
lay a hand down to that person since you will be playing out of
position throughout the whole hand...
please excuse my rambling.. i have been up for a long time!!!!!
josh arieh
E Vail
unknown. What I mean by this is, do you know the type of play that
the WCP uses SHORTHANDED? Additionally, you have no way of knowing
(unless you've been watching the game which I'm assuming not) how the
unknown player is counteracting the WCP's strategy. This is pretty
significant in a 3-way game. Seems to me, w/o further info such as
how often the WCP typically raises w/SB in a shorthanded game, for
example, it doesn't matter much.
E Vail
Danielnegreanu
>Hi Daniel, If the unknown player is limping on the button more often than
>raising
I should clarify, the player is 'unknown', which should mean that you have
absolutely no knowledge as to how he'd play...
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Danielnegreanu
>From: new...@aol.com (Newgca)
>Date: 7/9/02 5:31 PM Pacific
>So, how can this be a tough question?
Uhh...because you can't 'lock up' seats when playing online, and also because
a WCP wouldn't neccessarily 'lock up' all the other seats in the game even in a
casino. A lot of "WCP" believe so heavily in their abilities, they aren't
going to move seats just because a new player (threat) walked in. I've sat in
on heads up games a million times, not once did anyone ever lock up all the
remaining 7 seats!
Actually why did I even reply to this? Nevermind...
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Randy Hudson
Howard Lederer <how...@lvcm.com> wrote:
> The most important hand during a round is the hand where you are the button.
My turn to disagree. You'll be involved in (see a flop with) well over half
your BB hands, and probably less than half your button or SB hands.
So where do you want the unknown when you're in the BB? I'd say on the
button, especially if he doesn't play well shorthanded. Being out of
position to him will cost you less than being out of position to WCP.
To fully analyze thing, though, you'd have to do a weighted average over all
three positions, estimating the relative value of having the unkown on your
left vs on your right. When you're in the SB, I'd say you have a fairly
strong preference to have WCP on his button; when he raises, you can usually
just get out of his way, and when he folds, you can play more hands than you
usually would out of position, since you're heads-up with a putatively
weaker player. When you're in the BB, as I mentioned above, you'll lose
less if the WCP is in the SB. Only when you're on the button would you
prefer WCP on your left, and that won't gain you enugh to make up for what
it costs you when you're not on your button.
>You make most of your money this hand.
That's true by the nature of the blinds. But money not lost is worth just
as much as money won, and by having the WCP on your right when you're in
each blind, you'll minimize your losses in the blinds. I believe the
gain thereby will be greater than the gain foregone on your button.
> To those that think this is a bad spot to play in, I beg to differ. If you
> feel that you are a WCP yourself, then playing with an unknown and another
> WCP is a fine game by my standards. I particularly like short handed, where
> all the unknown's flaws will be exposed.
Also, many good players don't adjust enough for a short-handed game; and
because short-term luck can cause huge bankroll dents in a short time,
players are more likely to go on tilt in a short-handed game.
--
Randy Hudson <i...@panix.com>
Danielnegreanu
>
>The most important hand during a round is the hand where you are the button.
Tha't actually something Lee Munzer mentioned as well, and something I
overlooked.
When I replied, I didn't give it as much thought as I should have. When
answering the question I was thinking in terms of a 7 handed game rather than a
3 handed game.
Had I given it more thought (which i have now) I would think that if the game
were to stay three handed, I'd be better off on the WCP's right.
However, if another player sat down, I think I would again want to move to
his left.
For each additional player that sat down, I'd want even more to be on the
WCP's left.
Bottom line, I think I was wrong. If you try, you can learn something new
everyday...
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Howard Lederer
"Randy Hudson" <i...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:aggrn9$oqc$1...@reader3.panix.com...
>
> My turn to disagree. You'll be involved in (see a flop with) well over
half
> your BB hands, and probably less than half your button or SB hands.
Though I agree that I will see much less than 50% of flops in the SB, I will
probably see many more than 50% of flops on the button. If I am seeing less
than 50% of flops on the button, it is because my opponents are letting me
run over them.
Howard Lederer
Randy Hudson
Howard Lederer <how...@lvcm.com> wrote:
> [Three-handed] I will probably see many more than 50% of flops on the
> button. If I am seeing less than 50% of flops on the button, it is because
> my opponents are letting me run over them.
You're probably right, I'm not a WCP. I estimated the button never limps,
folds 30% of the time, and picks up the blinds 30% of the times he raises.
His profit from blind pickups, then, is .305 of a small bet per round, and he
has on average a worse hand than his opponent before the flop comes down
(which will be more than compensated for by his position).
If the button pushes down into playing the bottom 30% of his hands, the
opponents will rarely both fold, and his gain from blind pickups will go
down - and he'll still have a worse hand than his opponents on average (as
there are two opponents, he'll usually be heads-up against the better of
their two hands). The ability to just let a hand go, without having paid a
blind, is some of the value of the button, and giving that up by effectively
posting a dead straddle - always raising - won't be profitable against most
opponents.
--
Randy Hudson <i...@panix.com>
josh arieh
i have nothing against GCA and care nothing about him... maybe one
night i was in a bad mood and didnt like something that he wrote,,,,
who knows.. but i am saying upfront and outloud i have no opinion
about GCA
Josh Arieh
Newgca
>on heads up games a million times, not once did anyone ever lock up all the
>remaining 7 seats!
Ever consider that fact you are not a threat? More like a joke since you have
sold out.
Russ Georgiev new...@aol.com
Newgca
>feel that you are a WCP yourself, then playing with an unknown and another
>WCP is a fine game by my standards. I particularly like short handed, where
>all the unknown's flaws will be exposed.
>
>Howard Lederer
>
>
Russ Georgiev new...@aol.com
Newgca
>were to stay three handed, I'd be better off on the WCP's right.
It seems this a major problem you have. Speaking and then thinking. Hard to
clean up all the mistakes. Probably one of your weakness's in poker also?
Russ Georgiev new...@aol.com
Newgca
>spending some time watching how the unknown player reacts to the WCP's (and
>my
>own) play, i would consider moving if necessary.
>a move of that sort is commented on, so i would say something like "the glare
>is
>less over there", or "i want a view of that TV", whatever.
>
>sit first so you can see the unknown's decision-making more clearly
>(particularly, how he is reacting to WCP when i am in or not in the pot),
>then
>change as necessary, using a prepared excuse, as needed.
>
>Jonathan
>
>no matter where you go, there you are....
>
>
beneficial for you? Doesn't sound like a WCP to me if he does this.
Russ Georgiev new...@aol.com
JonCooke
Ignore the rake, and assume everyone is a WCP so it's zero sum.
And what % of hands would you raise with, 3 handed against two WCP?
Can you justify your answer with some back-of-envelope-pseudo-math?
Werner Campen
> I guess whoever sent you that e-mail never heard of game selection.Why would
> anyone want to court financial suicide by sitting down in a game like this.?
> Talk about compulsive gamblers!!
> Just in case somebody ever holds a gun on me and makes me join a game like this
> I will use my usual strategy, which is to sit on the left of whoever I think is
> the best player in the game [besides myself].
Most professionals I have seen sit to the left of the weakest player in
the game. That's the person they are there to play and they want
position on him almost all the time.
ELD077
Your point is well taken. However, I believe I can beat the weaker player from
any position. Therefore, I like the safety net of having position on the strong
player.I certainly don't want him to have position on me.Especially 3-handed.
eldo