PDA

View Full Version : Winning playing styles other than tight-aggressive


09-24-2001, 03:35 PM
I've been reading poker theory books lately, and all the authors advocate a tight-aggressive playing style. One qualifier that nearly all of them add is that this is how "most" winning players players play. I guess my question is, what styles other than tight-aggressive can be long-run winners, and how does that work?


Offhand, it occurred to me that a loose-aggressive player might be able to play winning poker if his poker psychology skills were extremely sharp, since they would have to make up for the poker math not being on his side. Having exceptional tell and hand reading might be able to overcome the mathmatical disadvantages.


By the way, I would like this string to avoid becoming a discussion of table image, which only has to do with how a player appears be playing. For example, Mike Caro often advocates a loose table image, but he does not advocate actually playing loose poker.

09-24-2001, 04:30 PM
Tight-aggressive works well so long as you can move to tight-passive when you need to.


Weak-tight (very tight and rarely aggressive) works against assertive loose types who will continue to bet their inferior hands in spite of the fact that your call means they are probably beat.


Playing reasonably loose and very aggressive works against "tight aggressive" types who just cannot stand calling.


Playing very loose and aggressively for one round works very well against weak-tight types.


- Louie

09-25-2001, 12:10 AM
You raise a good question and the answer to this question is what makes poker such a wonderful game. First, let me digress and say that what poker has over chess and bridge is that sequential logic is only good for half of the game (but almost all of the game in chess), the simultaneous juxtapositioning of things(reading hands and players) is the other half i.e. left brain vs right brain:


Tight aggressive is the template for success in a normal ring game of 9 to 11 people. But, as we all know, that doesn't work at all in a short game - the point being that there are situations where this is not only not correct play, but to maximize your winnings you must understand the personality of each game.


For instance, if you sit down to a game and the game lets you take control (i.e. you decide when the betting and raising will take place) this game can be played very fast. If you are sitting with Doyle, Malmuth, Slim and Baldwin you probably have to climb into your shell and pray to god you get out alive - lol.

09-25-2001, 12:29 AM
Let me give an example I have referred to before. Let's say you sit down to a 10/20 Omaha 8 game and most of the table is trying to turn the low and/or scoop the nuts cheaply on the flop, and/or check the flop to try and get the nuts on the turn cheaply.


Now lets say there is one other bold player in the game to help you raise and reraise (you're not playing with the person, you're playing off of the person). What happens to the pot odds of flopping the nuts if the tight passive players have to call two or three bets before the flop when they get 1234 (which is what they are looking for) and then maybe two or three bets again on the flop and then again on the turn?


One can drive these players nuts if they play their hands skillfully and that play would not be tight and aggressive. I would call it tight, aggressive and creative. And I always look for the opportunity to use this type of game.