Everything I've read about position says that you want players who bet a lot on your right, and passive players on your left. The explanation makes perfect sense, that you want the information on how the aggro is playing the hand while you can not be as worried about the passive guy behind you.

Lately, in particularly extreme cases, I found that I wanted the opposite positions.

In the last couple days I've been lucky enough to find a couple different "all-in -every-hand" players. In one case I had that player directly to my left, in the other case he was directly to my right. The strategy to take seems obvious to me in both cases, fold until you get a great hand and take a shot. The only thing I needed to worry about was the hands of the other players who were obviously following the same strategy. When I had the AI guy to my left, I was able to see who/how many of the other players were going to go after him, whereas when he was to my right I was first to act after his move.

When the AI guy had position on me, it was worth giving up position on him because it was almost like I was playing with ultimate position on every hand.

As I said, this was an extreme example, but if given a choice of sitting on either side of a maniac, HOW maniacal would he need to be for it to be best for him to have position on you?

...or now that I'm thinking this out more (as i type) it seems to be more an issue of predictability rather than aggressiveness, which leads to a similar question. How predictable would you want this player to be before sitting to his right?

If my questions are vague, it's because when as I wrote this I didn't have a particular question in mind. I'm more curious to see people's thoughts on the subject more than a hard answer.