I remember complaining to DY about soft play cash games in a provincial casino, set-over set stuff where someone should have got the whupping that I would have got had I been in the hand. I remember DY shrugging it off then as inconsequential compared to tournaments (although I am glad he has now seen the light!)and I should have put the following point forwards at the time to re-enforce the point:
In cash games, there is an implied threat to consider when entering a multi way pot with 2 known soft-players that you may become whip-sawed, meat-in-the-sandwich, whatever you want to call it.
For example, suppose you play in your local casino game and you are first to speak with 2 other players, lets call them "husband" and "wife" for the sake of argument. You bet out, "husband mini-raises" and then wife "mini-raises" - now what? You can accept 2-1 against the softplay and shovel it in (and you may not get 2-1 if "wife" takes the hint from "husband's" all in and thunderous glare and folds)or you can get out of the way with a less than premium hand. "Husband" and "wife" then check it down in the dark and split your blindes/antes/lead at the pot. Every one else nods sagely at the table, apparently completely understanding that it would be unreasonable to expect one of them to attack the other because it is the same bankroll after all. Nuts. You have a real fear that you could get back-raised and shut out by a player that is immune to losing to the third player, so can get fancy with plenty of hands that would otherwise be out of line if they choose to.
And that, IMHO, is an unfair advantage to give away as a direct result of soft play at a cash table.
Soft play in cash
In cash games, there is an implied threat to consider when entering a multi way pot with 2 known soft-players that you may become whip-sawed, meat-in-the-sandwich, whatever you want to call it.
For example, suppose you play in your local casino game and you are first to speak with 2 other players, lets call them "husband" and "wife" for the sake of argument. You bet out, "husband mini-raises" and then wife "mini-raises" - now what? You can accept 2-1 against the softplay and shovel it in (and you may not get 2-1 if "wife" takes the hint from "husband's" all in and thunderous glare and folds)or you can get out of the way with a less than premium hand. "Husband" and "wife" then check it down in the dark and split your blindes/antes/lead at the pot. Every one else nods sagely at the table, apparently completely understanding that it would be unreasonable to expect one of them to attack the other because it is the same bankroll after all. Nuts. You have a real fear that you could get back-raised and shut out by a player that is immune to losing to the third player, so can get fancy with plenty of hands that would otherwise be out of line if they choose to.
And that, IMHO, is an unfair advantage to give away as a direct result of soft play at a cash table.