Here are some ideas, when you are in position say OTB and villain in SB three bets, start capping a bit lighter this might slow him down. When out of position, I don't think you should cap lighter, but try and get to some showdowns with ace high, unless the board is really scary.

Sometimes these players are just big lags, which although difficult opponents they can be beaten with a bit of thought. However if the player is a tough lag tag, say someone similar to Oink or DD, then just find another table. Even if the game is good, having players like that having position on you most of the time is going to make the game quite difficult. There are so many games on the net, it should not be that hard to find another good table, but one without a tough player sitting on your left.

If you are at a good table, this shouldnt be a huge issue, i cant see it getting folded around to the button to often.

Have you seen what Oink does in his videos. Lets say you are in a good game and Oink has position on you. A loose player limps in early position, your in CO and isolate with something like K9 o/s. Oink now three bets you from the BTN. It's going to be very difficult to win this hand out of position against someone like Oink if you don't hit the flop.

I think having a good lagtag acting right behind you is going to be tough even if the game is generally good. It's going to make you really tighten up your isolating range, and thats going to affect your win rate.

Either way, a good LAGTAG who 3bets light and plays ok postflop to our left is very -EV so we need to be tightening up pf when oop.

Tightening up and getting more A high, sometimes K high hands to showdown is a general strategy. However, with how profitable blind stealing is, it seems like this would definitely impact our winrate a lot. I do always try to avoid having a tough opponent like this to my immediate left, but sometimes I find myself in games that are too good to pass up.

That being said, against an opponent who's counterstrategy is to tighten up his opening range from the CO, it seems as if there is a lot of added value in occasionally 3betting light from the button.

**I started looking into this and, upon first glance, it appears as if there might not be as much value in being able to steal more hands because your opponent tightens up. The additional hands you would be able to open raise from the button because your good opponent in the CO is now playing tighter, would only be approximately the bottom 15% or so of your range that you would not have 3bet anyway. With the CO playing tighter, I came up with 5-6% more button steals than if the CO was playing a normal strategy. That extra 5-6%, with the bottom 15% of your range which I estimated to win around .05bb/hand from that position, doesn't seem to add hardly anything to an overall bb/100. So, at a very quick first glance, it doesn't appear as if there is a lot to be gained by being able to open raise slightly more from the button because the CO is now playing a little tighter. This was surprising to me and it's possible I did something incorrectly.

I also ran some stoxEV sims, and, although crude and very quickly done, it appeared as if most of the value came from having the initiative in these pots. If an opponent plays fairly standard; calling down with A high sometimes, calling with overcards on the flop and pitching them on the turn, semibluffing, raising top pair/mid pair/calling down with bottom pair; it appears as if even some of the worst hands were doing fairly well. The simulation did not factor in being 3bet from the SB or getting called from the BB which would greatly affect the results. However, in my initial sim, all hands were positive EV (some only very slight) to 3bet a player who plays fairly standard like this. Having tight players in the blinds might make 3betting very attractive. Some hands, like 98s type hands, won't fair too poorly when 3bet anyway.

It's possible that having the initiative in a scenario when a player has a wide range is worth quite a bit more than having the initiative in a situation where the ranges are tighter. I would assume that this is due, in part, to opponents giving up more postflop when, as their range widens, they flop hands like overcards less often and are willing to give up more in general. In steal situations, it might be correct to 3bet with hands with much worse than 50% equity or so versus an opponents range; even moreso as the blinds tighten up.

I'm just rambling here but would love to continue the discussion on this.

Lozing

Then the question becomes is it more profitable for you to open loose and fight for more pots.

1) This is clearly game specific - as in, should you really be wasting time at the table fighting for pots when you could be isolating idiot fish.

2) This is opponent specific - as in, will fighting for pots actually work or is your opponent going to "pick up on this"

3) People often like to assume that the first few times you do play back, you are doing simply that, just playing back. Clearly, this favors tightening up in that situation.