help against a LAG

[Navers]

This was originally posted in the poker theory foruum but I was told that Mr. Schoonmaker and the people who hang out at the psychology forum could answer my question:

I play my friend headsup winner-take-all for small amounts of money. The problem I have playing is that he's very aggressive and bluffs very often. I have slowplayed him and won before but when I'm not catching good cards it can be a while before taking a big pot.

My major problem comes when I have something like medium pair medium kicker and he bets large, something around 4x or 5x the big blind on the turn and river. He bluffs so often its hard to call him down on the turn and river. I'm only comfortable playing my top pairs against him, but I don't get top pair very often heads up.

Whenever I get a good hand (for heads up) like K10 or better, I raise the pot, but if the flop is rags he'll bet enough out on me to force me to fold much of the time.

What adjustments do I need to win more against this type of player? Calling and raising seems fine only in limit hold em, but in NL I tried this and it hurt quite a few times. What kinds of hands do I need to play? What strategic betting adjustments need to be made? Also, what can I do to stop his behavior or in any way alleviate my situation? Any input would be appreciated.

[paland]

LOL. You're just getting pushed around. Grow some Huevos.

[Navers]

[ QUOTE ]
You're just getting pushed around. Grow some Huevos.

[/ QUOTE ] How about a serious answer?

[Al Schoonmaker]

The short handed section of HPFAP points out that the LAP's style shifts from a liability to a huge asset as the number of players decreases. Heads up, he will murder you, especially in NLHE.
The ONLY thing to do is DON'T PLAY HIM HEADS UP.
I am NOT fooling.
He will run over you.
Sorry to give you such discouraging news, but, unless you are willing to change your style completely, don't try to play him heads up.
I must add that hardly anyone can make a complete change in his style.
You and everyone else has to understand the strengths and weaknesses of your natural style, know how to change it, but accept that your ability to change is almost always limited.
Smart players choose games they can beat. Dumb ones kid themselves about their limitations.
Regards,
Al

[Navers]

[ QUOTE ]
unless you are willing to change your style completely, don't try to play him heads up.
I must add that hardly anyone can make a complete change in his style.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm just a beginning hold em player, so is there any greater chance for me to change my style since I haven't formed one completely yet?

Also, isn't forming a style part of how you become a good player, when you have to unnaturally learn to become a tight-aggressive player?

[StellarWind]

I don't understand why Theory sent you to Psychology. This is not a psychology problem. Based on your description you are playing mathematically incorrect poker (game theory). You are not calling enough to prevent some variation of an always-bet-without-looking-at-your-cards strategy from being +EV against you.

The good news is that this is a technique problem and not a style problem. You have a shortcoming in your understanding of HU NL hold'em. You don't know how to play this situation so that you negate and exploit his strategy.

To do list:

1. Don't play this opponent for meaningful stakes until you learn what to do.

2. Learn to recognize similar situations where you are failing to cope with an opponent and run away from them.

3. Realize that correct play against this player will probably involve +EV but very high variance. Fighting over-aggressive players always does.

4. Find someone who really understands NL hold'em and get them to teach you what to do. This could be a very hard thing to learn. You may need to learn a tremendous amount about poker to develop all of the necessary coping skills. Unfortunately I do not play NL and cannot help you get started.

Key point: if his strategy isn't happening on TV it means that good players are able to cope with it. You can learn to cope too.

[Clarkmeister]

"I must add that hardly anyone can make a complete change in his style"

C'mon Al. Poker is all about understanding the underlying concepts enough that one can play any style. Being able to adapt to your opponents and make any necessary adjustments is exactly what people should aspire to. One may prefer playing in a loose aggressive game, but should strive to be equally adept at shifting gears and correctly exploiting a tight passive game.

It's exactly the kind of mindset in your post that stops people from playing shorthanded. They get up when it gets down to 5 or 6 players. This not only costs them big time when shorthanded situations arise in their full ring games, it also costs them the opportunity to take advantage of profitable shorthanded situations that may arise.

This isn't football, where you can't teach someone to run a certain speed, or baseball where some just can't hit a fastball. This is poker, and anyone willing to put forth the effort should be able to learn the underlying concepts of the game well enough to apply those concepts as needed in changing game conditions. I'm surprised to see such a defeatist attitude in your post.

[pzhon]

I don't see why this is in the psychology forum. I think you simply don't know how to play heads-up.

Your standard for calling is too high.
You aren't raising frequently enough preflop.
You aren't paying attention to pot-odds.
You probably don't bluff enough.

You are losing because you are being outplayed. Do you understand his strategy? Throw it back at him and your results will improve to 50%. Improve on his strategy, and you will win more than 50%. Pretend it's a full table, and you will lose, lose, lose.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Perhaps people should be able to make large changes in their styles, but the evidence is very clear that most of us cannot actually do it.
You and I and everyone else are what we are because of our genes and a lifetime of experiences. The mere fact that our minds tell us that we should do this or that does not mean that we will be able to act out of character.
Of course, people vary enormously in their ability to adjust, but EVERYBODY has limitations. It is a form of denial to pretend that you don't have them. And denial is deadly.
You used a strong term, "defeatist attitude." The central concept of all my work is that people must be realistic about themselves and everything else.
You have been exhorted repeatedly to deny reality. You and many other Americans have been raised on a steady diet that it is manly to deny reality. "The team that won't be beaten, can't be beaten." "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." "The bigger they are, the harder they fall."
All of those slogans are utter BS, and they are extremely destructive for poker players. Our game allows us to choose when and where to play. In fact, the single most important decision we make is game selection.
If you choose games well, you will win.
If you choose games poorly, you will lose.
It really is that simple.
When the going gets tough, don't see it as a challenge. GET OUT.
Regards,
Al

[Warren Whitmore]

Excellent post. Very impressive.

[ACW]

This thread reminds me of a situation I came up against online last night.

I was playing at a 0.25/0.50 6 max (full) table, buying in for $30 (average stack), when some guy turns up and started bullying the table. Often, when the pot reached $10 or more, he would go all-in on the river. He got caught with a bluff with two unmatched overcards (KJ) on one hand, then I (foolishly I know) called with top pair OK kicker and found he wasn't bluffing, rather slow playing a set of 3's.
He called a preflop raise from my KK with J7s and hit a set of 7's (fortunately an ace on the flop scared me away cheaply and someone else was the victim here). Upshot was I was down $60 in around 20 minutes.

I left, and later joined a fairly well matched and ABC 1/2 limit table with 3 players. Bully joined (guess he was after more of my money), and got lucky to bust one opponent.
Now 3 haned, limit. His style was hopeless at this game. He'd raise relentlessly to get me off pots and I'd just go into check/call mode. When I got a (rare) free play with 85 in the big blind and flopped 764 rainbow he bet out from the SB. I called to keep the button in and avoid scaring away his big bets. A 3 hit on the turn, and both the turn and river got capped for a $44 pot! I guess the button had a 5, but I've no idea if the bully had one. It took 13 minutes to recover my entire $60 earlier loss.

So I think I agree with both Al and Clarkmeister. I correctly ran away, and fortunately found that just playing in a different structure was sufficient adjustment to kill the bully. His failure to adjust cost him heavily.

[RydenStoompala]

I dont think the post belongs elsewhere because Navers knows what is happening to him. If it were just the math, he'd be reading a book, not asking for advice.

You may want to be outplayed. The stakes may be too small to cause a change in your opponents behavior by changing your game to a more agressive one. There is no doubt you do have to come right back over the top on this guy, sometimes when you have nothing but rags.

I sounds like it's an unpleasant leisure activity. If it isn't, then maybe that's your answer. Maybe hanging out with your friend, even if he's beating the heck out of you in a tiny stakes no limit game, is still a good time.

[spamuell]

Hi Al,

I really disagree with your post. If people are meant to get out when the going gets tough, what is the point of these boards? I'm fairly certain that I can't beat a game of 40/80 hold'em at the moment, should I quit poker? There's no reason that I should not be able to beat it in future, I'm an intelligent enough person and with a reasonable amount of study, I should be able to achieve this.

I'm really perplexed at your attitude - why did you even write a book on poker (of which I own a copy) if we should just "GET OUT" when "the going gets tough"?

In fact, the single most important decision we make is game selection.

This is true but it doesn't mean we can't improve as players. I'm pretty sure you don't mean we can't improve, but this is what you seem to be saying and it's wrong.

Incidentally, the bigger they are, the harder they fall is true.

[Navers]

My situation isn't as desperate as you might think.My opponent did play very differently from what I expected at first and he did get the best of me. However, I started going all-in with top pair knowing that he'd call with weak kickers and slowplaying. Also, I started inducing bluffs and it's been working. We've been playing for about half a year now and as aggressive as he is I've been able to take a profit from him.
I'd say I come out with a profit approximately 3/5 games.

I do have the guts to push in, but this only comes with a hand that I know I can beat him with. It's just that I'm too timid or perhaps inexperienced to know when is overbets are bluffs or not and when my hand is crap or beating his.
Basically, I came here because I realized my strategy wasn't aggressive enough but I have to keep playing him because I've been making a profit off his mistakes.

perhaps my style is sufficient to face my opponent and win a bit of money, but my style isn't very optimal.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps people should be able to make large changes in their styles, but the evidence is very clear that most of us cannot actually do it.

[/ QUOTE ]
He doesn't need to change his style.

It is important to understand what style is in a game-playing context. In discussing this realize that I am deliberately overlooking the masses of fish who choose to routinely make plays they know are incorrect. We are now talking about serious players who study the game and strive to play to the best of their ability.

Style determines how you play when you have a choice of reasonable plays. It does not apply when you know that one of your alternative plays is correct and the others are clearly inferior. Then we all make the same play regardless of our personal styles.

The big caveat here is that situations arise where Clark calls because it's the obvious right play and I make a style-driven raise because I simply don't understand the situation as well as Clark does.

That does not mean that I need to change my style to become less aggressive. I need to learn how to play this situation correctly. When I understand what Clark understands I will start calling too. No style change is required because style is removed from the decision-making process once I realize that this is a right/wrong situation.

I have a problem that is similar in nature to the original poster's problem. I don't fully understand how to defend my big blind (limit hold'em) from thieves. I make many of my call/fold decisions both preflop and postflop based on intuition, guesswork, and improvisation. I think that my play is probably too tight and there are other defects as well. Fortunately for me this weakness is not a big deal at 2/4 especially considering that most of my opponents play this situation even worse.

The point is that it would not occur to me that this leak was about style. It is about me not knowing what the right plays are. I am working very hard to learn how to play this situation and gradually I am improving. One day I will be good at this.

That is what the original poster needs to do. He needs to seize every opportunity he can to study how good NL players deal with excessive bluffers heads up. It won't be easy because I doubt there is a simple fix. Probably he needs to learn to use a whole range of tactics and exploit all of the individual details that make every hand different. The good news is he will be an enormously improved player if he succeeds. He won't get where he wants to go without upgrading his whole understanding of the game.

[Clarkmeister]

Al,

Respectfully, I cannot state strongly enough how much I disagree with your thoughts in this thread. This isn't about taking a severe introvert and trying to make him into a great public speaker. It's not about trying to take an impatient but brilliant mathematician and turn him into a preschool teacher. For that matter, I don't even really agree with your idea that we are all taught to "overcome" and "keep fighting". I could make a strong case that our society is overwhelmed with messages of "don't take personal responsibility", "look for someone to blame" and "it's not your fault that you can't do 'X' right away, don't bother trying since it doesn't come easy to you."

It's about poker. There is no real such thing as style. Style is an artificial construct. I can play like a LAG, I can play like a rock. People can label those as styles, but they are really just applying the correct strategy based on the current situation. By saying people can't change their styles, you are saying they are intrinsically incapable of changing and applying correct strategy based on changing game conditions. I am frankly shocked to see these thoughts coming from an author on a message board dedicated to helping people learn how to understand and apply poker concepts.

I wonder Al....If the first post in this thread had been about a player who "couldn't beat those terrible loose passive calling stations" would you have still posted the same response? Would you have told him to avoid those players since his style clearly isn't effective against them? It's the exact same question and I think you would have had a very different answer.

Now that doesn't mean that people should blindly butt heads with a player who is superior to them. But according to the poster, he is simply playing against a player using an unbalanced strategy that he hasn't learned to counter yet. The solution isn't "avoid that player and players like him." The solution is "learn the correct strategy (not style) to defeat an overaggressive player in shorthanded situations." Of course we should all exercise good game selection. I'm not saying one shouldn't. But if people went back to their comfort zone every time they were faced with a new challenge in poker, no one would ever advance and get better.

[paland]

I'm beginning to respect you more and more. Your thoughts and logic are quite clear. Thanks for the lesson.

[Noo Yawk]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm beginning to respect you more and more. Your thoughts and logic are quite clear. Thanks for the lesson.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read any and every post of Clark's you can find, particularly for the last two years. It's one of the best Poker educations you will ever get.

Not just the thoughts, but the way he presents his ideas are invaluable.

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps people should be able to make large changes in their styles, but the evidence is very clear that most of us cannot actually do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I very strongly disagree with this, in poker and in other fields as well. I think good players undergo many style changes in their lives depending on the games they are playing. the best are adapting their styles constantly to current conditions.

--turnipmonster

[SnakeRat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps people should be able to make large changes in their styles, but the evidence is very clear that most of us cannot actually do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I very strongly disagree with this, in poker and in other fields as well. I think good players undergo many style changes in their lives depending on the games they are playing. the best are adapting their styles constantly to current conditions.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Al is saying that "most of us" dont fall into the good, or best categories.

I take it to mean all poker players as a group.

[TiK]

I don't play much heads-up poker (especially not no-limit) but I do know that this game is a vastly different game than a ring game. Strategy adjustments are absolutely necessary and play is totally different. If you play too tight, the blinds will get you, and the good hands you do get will probably miss the flop completely most of the time. Reliance on reads of your opponent become very important. You mentioned that you've been playing your opponent heads up for half a year. He must have some tells that you've picked up. Exploit them. If you haven't picked up any tells from this guy, either you haven't been observing him closely enough or this guy is stonefaced and is a robot.

As someone mentioned in a previous post, this situation makes the non-aggressive player in this game an enormous underdog. In order to counter his strategy, I say you start putting him to the test. i.e. reraise whenever you have a pocket pair if he raises, reraise with big draws. Again, as someone mentioned, the variance in this game will be very high, but if you play back at your opponent, he will have to change his strategy. Also, you mention that you do win most of the time, so you've already started to adjust to his strategy. I've run out of advice to give, so godspeed, and happy poker.

-Tik

[Al Schoonmaker]

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that a new player will be more flexible than an experienced one. We all develop habits, and they are hard to change.
It you develop a tight-aggressive style early in your "career," you are way ahead of most people. It takes most of us a lot of work and study to develop it.
But the tight-aggressive style does not work heads up against a hyper-aggressive player.
The great players have a much wider range of styles than you and I. That's one reason they are great players.
Hardly anyone can adapt completely. That is, our natural personality and habits put limits on how much we can adjust to conditions.
Regards,
Al

[Al Schoonmaker]

If the game is too tough for you, it is the height of stupidity to play (unless you are doing it for other reasons which I will discuss later). If, for example, I sit down and realize that I am below the average skill level of the opponents, the only intelligent action is to quit immediately.
There is a wonderful expression that you've probably read. "It's no good to be the tenth best player in the world if the top nine are at your table."
That's exactly what I mean. You must know and work within the limitations created by your own skill level.
Most people do NOT know it. They grossly overestimate their skills. For example, for virtually every known skill, 2/3 or more people rate themselves as above average, a statistical impossibility.
Poker players are in even greater denial. In fact, Sklansky mentions it on PAGE ONE of TOP. The weak players' denial of their limitations is the major source of good players' profits.
Want solid data? Go to cardplayer.com and read Nolan Dalla's survey in the current issue of the magazine. His question 11 was: "If I get heads up at the final table [of the $10K WSOP NLHE event] and am even in chips with a top pro, I believe I have just as good a chance to win as he does." 44% of his respondent's said they agreed. The true percentage is probably less than 1%.
Question 14: Given that you already have a seat in the WSOP 10K event, do you believe you have a chance to win it? 64% agreed. The true number is much, much less than 1%. In fact, with 2,576 entrants, the chances of winning an event in which no skill is involved are 1/4 of 1%. Add in that skill matters a great deal, and that nearly every great player in the world was in the field, and the chances of most players were infinitesimal. In fact, my next Card Player column, "The Lottery Mentality," discusses the delusion that anyone can win.
It is fine to think in terms of someday playing at much higher levels. I encourage people to move up, challenge themselves, develop their skills, etc. But don't kid yourself and play against better players unless you are willing to lose. If you are willing to do so to develop your game, fine. It's tuition. If you habitually play against better players, you MUST lose, and you may lose much more money than you can afford.
Regards,
Al

[Al Schoonmaker]

Clark,
As always, when we disagree, it's with mutual respect.
If you look at a post in this thread that I made a moment ago, I say it's fine to take on challenges if you regard the lost money as tuition. That's how we develop ourselves.
But we must understand and generally work within our limitations. You and I and everyone else have limitations. Our genes and history have created certain ways of thinking and acting. Perhaps you, as a thorough student of the game, can play like an LAP or a rock, but I know that I can't, and neither can most people. The LAP has an immense advantage in heads up situations. That's right from HPFAP. Perhaps you can adjust your style enough to counter him effectively. I very much doubt that the original poster can do so.
I must add that style is not an artificial construct for the overwhelming majority of players. Rocks might loosen up a little. Maniacs might calm down a little, but Rocks don't become Maniacs unless they are on tilt, and Maniacs very, very rarely play like Rocks. At least 90% of all players have a characteristic style, and they rarely or never get too far from it.
Respectfully,
Al

[Mayhap]

Wow,
What a thread this has been. Gems like this make me glad I stumbled into this 2+2 rough.
Anyway, I'm now inspired to write and publish my first book:
_How_to_Develop_Multiple_Personality_Disorder_in_t he_Privacy_of_Your_Own_Home_for_Fun_and_Profit_.
Whaddya think, pretty catchy title eh?
/M

[Navers]

Al, when you say that people can't adapt or change styles, do you mean that's because they have to change their thinking and acting that's so ingrained in them? Does that mean that the hardest part about becoming a better player who adapts is not necessarily learning the material about how to become better, but the actual transformation of their thinking and acting at the poker table?

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
If the game is too tough for you, it is the height of stupidity to play (unless you are doing it for other reasons which I will discuss later).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree but this did not seem to be what you were saying in your original post. You said perhaps people should be able to make large changes in their styles, but the evidence is very clear that most of us cannot actually do it. This seemed to me to be saying not "don't play in a game that you can't beat" but "learn to accept that there are games which you are never going to be able to beat, so don't try." I suppose that comments from you like the ONLY thing to do is DON'T PLAY HIM HEADS UP and when the going gets tough, don't see it as a challenge. GET OUT reinforced that interpretation of your remarks in my mind. If you just meant don't play in games that are too tough if you intend to win in them, I agree, but if you meant never play in said games and any endeavour to improve will be fruitless, I strongly disagree.

[Al Schoonmaker]

I think you have fairly stated the problem. It is much easier to change our intellectual understanding of a subject than it is to apply that knowledge and change our behavior.
This heads up issue is a case in point. I have carefully studied the advice of HPFAP and other authorities. I know how to play heads up against hyper-aggressive players. I could probably write a reasonably intelligent article about the subject.
However, my natural conservatism virtually guarantees that I will NOT play that way, and that, if I play against such a person, I will lose. I simply can't act that far out of character.
I wholeheartedly agree with people who suggest that we test ourselves by trying new behavior patterns, accepting challenges, etc. IF we do so in an experimental way. For example, I have worked on my weak short handed game by playing small SNG. It's cheap tuition. Since my short handed game is weak, it would be very foolish to play in high stakes heads up games.
I must never forget my own character and the limitations it creates. Most people are much too optimistic about the degree to which they can change. You are who you are, and you will probably not change that much.
Regards,
Al

[Mayhap]

[ QUOTE ]
However, my natural conservatism virtually guarantees that I will NOT play that way

[/ QUOTE ]
I bump my head on that wall everytime that I play. I need to transit from being a tpp to being a tap in order to succeed in poker. Currently, I'm operating on the assumption that this possible. I'm still new to the game. Should I dash my hopes of being able to mold new behavior patterns?
/M

[StellarWind]

My impression is that most of the tight-aggressive players in this forum were once in one of the other three basic style groups. A key point of Dr. Al's book (assuming I understood correctly) is that unlike the other three style groups, TAPs are made and not born.

[Mayhap]

Then this is the essence of the clash and clamor in this thread. TAPs are not natural, yet some succeed in becoming one.
I would like to think that I understand Dr. Al as follows:
<ul type="square"> It is possible over time to make the behavioral changes to become an accomplished TAP.
The only way to accomplish anything in poker is to cultivate a self-scrutinizing self-awareness.
If you are on the road to being a totally accomplished player, you will avoid those side routes that may have you stuck in the mud, only if the stakes are significant. Otherwise, for small stakes, these muddy areas are to be sought out as they provide high quality education for low, affordable tuition.
Since TAPs are made not born, it IS POSSIBLE to retrain native unTAP personal inclinations. (Please say this is so, else I should give up the game right now - right?).
[/list]
I hope Dr. Al will validate/invalidate this.
/M

[Dan Mezick]

Upgrading your understanding of the game.....Ok.

What is the first thing to consider when planning to upgrade your understanding of the game? Is there such a "first" thing? Does such a starting point exist?

What is the first thing a player must do to aim towards accomplishing that task of fuller game understanding?

What is the structure of this task? What are the key elements that populate it?

[Al Schoonmaker]

Generally, the younger and less experienced you are, the more flexible you are likely to be. Becoming a TPP is often a necessary step from being a LPP to becoming a TAP.
I've been playing so long that I doubt that I will ever go much further from my current style which is 2,7, tight-aggressive. That is a very good style to have, but NOT heads up against a very loose-aggressive player.
Since you are relatively new player, I see no reason why you can't become a TAP.
Regards,
Al

[Al Schoonmaker]

You said it very well.
It is not easy, but it can be done.
However, there are limits. In another post I just made in this thread I say that I doubt that I can make all the adjustments needed to play heads up against a loose-aggressive player.
Al

[Clarkmeister]

" (Tight aggressive) is a very good style to have, but NOT heads up against a very loose-aggressive player."

You keep saying this and it is simply dead wrong. As an example, a tight aggressive player may fold AJo in the BB against an UTG preflop raiser in a full ring game. However, if that preflop raise was an open raise from the button, that same tight aggressive player would usually 3-bet instead of folding.

In other words, tight aggressive still gets the money. Would you recommend that instead of tight-aggressive, one play loose-aggressive, loose-passive or tight-passive headsup against a LAG? I hope not.

I still think you are getting wrapped up in artificial labels and definitions. Instead, one should focus on understanding poker enough that one can apply the appropriate principles in the appropriate situations. After all, poker at its core is just about making correct decisions.

[Lawrence Ng]

Clarkmeister,

As usual your posts offer wonderful insights.

Poker is such a dynamic game that often there is no one correct strategy ever involved. But the general concensus is that a tight aggressive style is the overall best strategy to execute in a poker game.

Every situation is uniquely different and with so many variables and factors in play, the optimal way to maximize your edge will lead to the "it depends."

I agree that a TAP does not neccesarliy mean that he will be a good player or a winning player for that fact. It just means that it's best the overall possible strategy to partake.

Ultimately within the dynamic game of poker, the player who adjusts best to every situation will win.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately within the dynamic game of poker, the player who adjusts best to every situation will win.

[/ QUOTE ]
The great player is a master at adjusting to different situations.

For the rest of us, the winning player is a master at finding situations to which he is already well adjusted.

[Al Schoonmaker]

As you do so often, you have expressed your position very well.
I agree with Clarkmeister that it would be highly desirable to be able to adjust to every type of situation, but I am a limited player (and a limited person).
So are most others.
A central point of my personal philosophy, for life as well as poker, is that we must be ruthlessly objective about our limitations. If we are not, we will get into situations that we can't handle well.
A major enemy is our denial of our limitations. MOST people do not play as well as they think they do. MOST players are much less able to adjust than they think.
We should therefore carefully select the situations in which we compete.
It is fine to test our limits by trying situations that are not natural for us. That's how we grow.
But it is destructive to insist that we can adjust outside our limitations.
To return to the heads up example. I know that I am a mediocre heads up player. I am considerably better than I once was because I have played some SNGs I do much better at a full table than I do at a short handed game, and I am barely a break even player heads up.
Against a LAP, I will probably lose.
I will gladly play heads up with almost anyone for very low stakes to develop my skills. Any money I lose will be charged to my "tuition budget."
I would not even think of playing any competent heads up player or LAP for significant stakes. The tuition bill would be too high.
Regards,
Al