All of the study material I have used to help me "grow" in this game, I am still struggling with understanding the full potential of table position. With general statements like only play 15 - 20% of the hands and then charts showing about 10% from early positions and some up to 50% from the button, I am a little confused. I can see the obvious advantage of acting last, as I at least have some indication of what everyone else intends to do, but is there more to it than this? To my mind playing a hand I would consider in the top 25% (but not not the top 10% is a stronger play from an early position than playing something purely speculative from a late position.

It is possible I am becoming confused between being first to raise and simply playing the hand after a raise.

Currently I have difficulty after the flop. If I am out of position, and I play aggressively and then get hit with a raise from a later position, I become confused. In theory the villains hand range should be weaker than mine, but I then feel the need to fold just in case. When in position, and I try the same approach against a villains range, I am often called when I have nothing more than a semi bluff, thereby only increasing my loss. In the majority of cases where I have called the bet, whether in position or out of position, I have been wrong. It leads me to the conclusion that I should only play the top 20% of hands and forget about position. My ego, however, is not big enough to trust my own judgement over the experts. What am I missing here? What is the difference between being in position, and checking when out of position to get the option to act last?

You have to think about the number of players yet to act in front of you.

If you're opening UTG in 6max, there's 5 other players who might raise you, 3 of whom have position on you. This is a problem - you need to play tighter. Contrast that to the BTN who only has to worry about the blinds. Late position has much more fold equity.

If you're opening 25% range UTG you won't be able to defend properly against raises. You'll be too weak postflop a lot of the time. It's an okay exploit against passive nits though.

Your postflop problems stem from overplaying wide ranges preflop.

I have actually been playing quite tight in early position. However if I have opened with something like KQs or JJ. It is when I have nothing better post flop there is the issue. Someone on the button raises and I assume they have me beat with AA or KK. Although their have a much wider range, anytime I have assumed they are semi bluffing with a lower pair and called, I have been wrong.

The point I am making is I cannot see were position has given them an advantage here. If I raise, they re-raise. If I check they raise. Either way I have no idea were I stand.

If we reverse this situation and I have position. They raise and I assume they have a strong hand since they opened from an early position. But if they check and I raise, then I am opening myself up to a bigger loss when they then re-raise. Yet it seems if I check back with them, I am showing weakness and just going to face the same problem on the turn.

I don't think opening with too wide a range is the issue here. I am just totally confused how to play post flop. Recently I have been folding anything lower than a top pair and folding to aggression with anything less than an decent over pair. I'm feel sure that is not a profitable way to play.

I have gone from believing everyone is bluffing and being a calling station to believing everyone else has the nuts and folding to the slightest sign of strength.

It’s also not just about winning pots, it’s about often being able to win more when you do win and losing less when you lose. For example take a hand like ATo. It’s a reasonably strong hand but one that usually should be folded UTG in a full ring game. It often will get raised by a hand that dominates it, such as AK. Suppose you call a raise with it. In position you can just call an open raise; OOP you will be calling a 3 bet — already you are losing more money by playing OOP, even though your equity is the same either way.

Now let’s say you flop T62r. You have TPTK, but OOP facing a 3 bet, you don’t know where you stand. You should check the flop. If opponent checks back, you likely are ahead, but you jus lost a street of value. If he bets, you really don’t know so you aren’ check raising; likely you call and evaluate OTT. In position it plays a whole lot better. Opponent will either check or c bet. You can probably value bet his checks and either win right there or build a bigger pot.

Suppose an ace OTT. If you’re IP your opponent likely is range betting- you can either flat or 3 bet; either way you build the pot on this street. OOP if you check intending to check raise, he might well check back with combos like JJ-KK. Similar analysis applies OTR assuming a brick. On a scare card, like a K or Q, checking OOP likely induces a bluff if opponent didn’t beat you. In position if he did catch a set, he’ll likely go for a check raise since you’ve shown strength all the way. You can check behind and deny his value in such cases.

Long story short: even if you have the same equity, you can control the pot size better IP than OOP and you can more easily realize your equity IP. It’s not just about being more likely to win the pot IP.

the value of your position changes with so many things in the game it is hard to determine. position to act is just one thing.

another might be position against each player as how they play against you. some, you might be better off oop against them. such as ones that tend to fold on the flop if they are bet into. as an example.
during the hand being in the middle of three players is suicide compared to being last. and first is better than that even though you are later to act.