Playing the position in cash games

It should be clear that the power of position should be driving our playing decisions. Most of us should stick with a 10% range in early position. Tightening our EP range even further would not reduce our profit noticeably, and may even help our image.

Steve Selbrede shares further insight into cash game strategy.

Cash Game Strategy for the Rest of Us: Playing the Position Game

The position value is growing with limit increasing. On high limits it's impossible to play out of position but on low limits it's impossible to play in the position. ))

delirium1129 said:

The position value is growing with limit increasing. On high limits it's impossible to play out of position but on low limits it's impossible to play in the position. ))

Click to expand...

I dont really understand that statement? Its not less important to have position on a bad player than a good one. Even the bad player gain an advantage by seeing, what we do, before he has to make a decisions.

fundiver199 said:

I dont really understand that statement? Its not less important to have position on a bad player than a good one. Even the bad player gain an advantage by seeing, what we do, before he has to make a decisions.

Click to expand...

You have to make more difficult decisions when getting press by 3 barrels vs total maniac. I noticed that fishes giving up easier when I have initiative. Pos questions I studying for a long time and can't be agree that the positional advantage is the advantage in 100%. Sure if you playing with known opponent it will be in 100%. On low limits position is important for blind stealing at most.
PS My opinion isn't reliably because I have only 2bb/100 ZOOM and 40% ITM Spin n GO limits up to 30$. But it's +.

fundiver199 said:

I dont really understand that statement? Its not less important to have position on a bad player than a good one. Even the bad player gain an advantage by seeing, what we do, before he has to make a decisions.

Click to expand...

You can of course exploit a bad player from every position. But he closer the skill level the more important other factors like position becomes.

And on higher stakes there are less bad and more good players.

Same with games where equities runs closer than Holdem (like PLO, 2-7 Draw). The value of position goes up.

Sometimes the only advantage you have is position. Can you say the same when you play a bad player?

pentazepam said:

You can of course exploit a bad player from every position. But he closer the skill level the more important other factors like position becomes.

And on higher stakes there are less bad and more good players.

Same with games where equities runs closer than Holdem (like PLO, 2-7 Draw). The value of position goes up.


Sometimes the only advantage you have is position. Can you say the same when you play a bad player?

Click to expand...

Actually I would rather have position on a bad player than a good player, because the bad player typically play far more hands. I think, this is a pretty common way to think about it? Most regulars are chasing the "jesus seat" to the direct left of a very loose bad player and avoiding that to his direct right.

When we open raise, we ideally like to either steal the blinds or "buy the button" and get position on typically the player in BB, who defend. So whenever someone between us and SB wants to play, that is typically bad, except when we have a really premium hand like a big pocket pair.

Sure I would rather get cold called by someone with a very wide range than someone with a narrow and strong range. But the issue is, its happening far more often, which makes it difficult to get non showdown winnings to be more technical about it.

With a fish to our left we get floated a lot, and we are more or less forced to make hands and win at showdown, because the fish just does not give up, when he have position. And sometimes a regular behind takes advantage of the fact, the fish just put in 3BB with a garbage hand, and squeeze.

Hey! The position is really important, but I open a slightly different range on an early position, except when my opponents play a very wide range. If opponents play in the tight range, it’s more profitable to open a little more hands.

fundiver199 said:

Actually I would rather have position on a bad player than a good player, because the bad player typically play far more hands. I think, this is a pretty common way to think about it? Most regulars are chasing the "jesus seat" to the direct left of a very loose bad player and avoiding that to his direct right.

When we open raise, we ideally like to either steal the blinds or "buy the button" and get position on typically the player in BB, who defend. So whenever someone between us and SB wants to play, that is typically bad, except when we have a really premium hand like a big pocket pair.

Sure I would rather get cold called by someone with a very wide range than someone with a narrow and strong range. But the issue is, its happening far more often, which makes it difficult to get non showdown winnings to be more technical about it.

With a fish to our left we get floated a lot, and we are more or less forced to make hands and win at showdown, because the fish just does not give up, when he have position. And sometimes a regular behind takes advantage of the fact, the fish just put in 3BB with a garbage hand, and squeeze.

Click to expand...

Maybe there is some type of semantic misunderstanding between us here. (Since I agree with all the things you wrote above).

My point was that position gets more important in RELATIVE terms when skill or equities gets closer.

If you can choose to have BOTH a bad player AND position you take that seat every time you get the opportunity - that's a given.

But if you play higher against mostly regulars position gets more important.

If a bad player joins a table at say 200NL the fact that a "fish" just have joined is more important than anything else. The player lucky enough to have position on the fish are of course more likely to win more money from him. But everyone at the table gains more and have a bigger chance to win money just by the fact that it is not just regulars anymore. No matter what position they are in.

Your argument is a little like: it is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick. It's a truism.

Yes, it is better to have position on a bad player than a good player since it is a bigger opportunity to win big and earn money.

Take away the bad player and the edge you get by playing in position gets more important in RELATIVE terms if you continue playing. Not in absolute terms - you always want bad players at your table - and you also want position on them if they aren't super tight nits that over-folds.

But in the games I used to play in. (I'm "retired" now) we were lucky just to get a fish. No matter the position I could after that earn more money than usual pretty easy.¨

So if you have skill advantage you should be able to win against a worse player no matter your position. Take away or close the "skill gap" and you are better off playing almost all big pots in position.

It for that same reason position is more important in say PLO in RELATIVE terns. The equities runs closer and you card advantage or skill advantage gets smaller than in Holdem.Bad players can win more often even if they get it in bad.

So to summaries: my point was that position gets more important in relative terms if you play against mostly equally good players (or in a game where equities runs closer).

Bad players I can almost always beat from any position. Not for as much money, but still beat. Against a good player I may need position most of the time I get involved with non premium hands.

If you think all the players are as good or better than you you should not continue playing at all, but a small skill advantage gets amplified every time you get position which adds up in the long run.

Hope I don't seem aggressive. If think it was a question of how we define "more important".