Wednesday, October 22, 2008


Only played another small session last night, but should get in a longer session tonight. Played about half an hour but due to the time, there were relatively few tables running, and even fewer that were worth playing.

I've decided now to be a bit more strict on my seating position. I have been allowing myself to play on a table if there were basically at least two fish on the table, irrespective of my position. My new approach will be to only play on those tables if the player to my right is either one of those fish, or a tight passive. There's no point in playing if there's a LAG/TAG to my right, as I will be continuously raised off of hands preflop. I suspect though, i'd still play it if there were 3 fish on the table, but will see.

I will also accept a maniac on my right, as that gives me the opportunity to reraise to isolate, as well as limp reraise from time to time. Admittedly the maniac is going to be much higher variance, so i'd prefer the fish on my right, but i'm sure it will still be positive.

As far as play goes, in my session I did manage to play on a tightish $2/4 table with a maniac on my right, who donated me a good 15BBs in the space of around 20 minutes. I had to actually get up and leave the table and sit back down to get the right position on him, but it was well worthwhile with me just letting him bet into me when I had medium strength hands which generally held up. I also had a Bodog table running at the same time, which was super fishy with a couple guys with VPIPs over 70, and I had position on two of them. Unfortunately they then managed to suck out and destroy me with my AK losing to A2, AQ losing to Q4, nut flush losing to a rivered paired board for a full house and various other nasty beats to drop about 25BBs. So all in all the bankroll ended a few BBs up.

Current bankroll: $13,400


TiocfaidhArLa said...

Food for thought for me. I worry more about the seats to my left than my right. Rationale being, if I have position on them, I always have more data than they do.

Do you think NL is different to Limit in this regard? A LAG / Maniac to my left is a tough day at the office.

You have certainly prompted me to revisit table selection as I have gotten very lazy on this. Thanks for the prompter.

parttimebonuschaser said...

A complete maniac I definitely want on my right if I can't have a fish there. As they tighten up towards LAG and TAG though I dont want them there as i'll lose a lot of blinds compared to having a fish there.

Ideally, to my left I really want a tight player (TAG or TP .. dont care which) that I can steal from relentlessly.

If I was stuck with a choice of being between a fish and maniac and I could stick them on whichever side I wanted, i'm not really sure - but probably the fish on my right still.

I'm not sure if its different for NL. I suspect its the same, but there might be a higher priority to have the maniac on my immediate right than the fish.

The blindman said...

I don't know.. I still think I prefer to have the aggressive players on my right. That way, I can selectively play back at them and build big pots in favourable positions.

A maniac, I am happy to have on my right, or even potentially on my left. If they are on my left I can use a limp-reraise and check-raise strategy to build huge multi-way pots when the cards are right.