Why is TAG better than LAG?

[kurosh]

Why does everyone here advocate being TAG and making LAG seem like the devil? It seems to me that a LAG player with excellent hand reading ability would make far far more money than a TAG player.

[PITTM]

and why would it seem that way?

rj

[kurosh]

If a TAG and LAG both have great hand reading ability, the LAG would be more successful just for the fact that he plays more hands and can outplay the other guy more. It only matters what your hand is if he's going to call.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does everyone here advocate being TAG and making LAG seem like the devil? It seems to me that a LAG player with excellent hand reading ability would make far far more money than a TAG player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Excellent reads are rare, particularly online.

Because it is exciting to imagine a poker player reading someone's mind, people greatly exaggerate the the effectiveness of reading people. Poker pros would win much more than 1 BB/hour if they really could read people consistently.

[raccon]

A TAG player with superb hand reading ability would make even more money than a LAG with same hand reading abilities.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does everyone here advocate being TAG and making LAG seem like the devil? It seems to me that a LAG player with excellent hand reading ability would make far far more money than a TAG player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because no matter how good a hand reader you are, if your starting requirements are lose you are going to be behind more often than not post flop. If you are coming to the realization on the turn quite often that you are behind and folding, you are losing a lot of money. Certainly you will get paid off nicely when you are ahead, but you will be losing a lot with all those hands that miss. (This is mainly a limit full table argument. The shorter the table gets the less difference between lag and tag.) Another thing, too: Against good players, a lag is not going to be nearly as effective at reading hands because they will start playing hands that missed the same as hands that hit if the lag will lay down, and if the lag adapts they will start getting more value from their good hands. It is just hard to win in the long run when you start out with lesser holdings than your opponents.

Against weaker opponents, and at certain tables, playing more lose and aggressive is better, but not as a general rule. In no limit I think playing laggish (compared to limit) is more correct, but I am not very adept a NL yet.

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does everyone here advocate being TAG and making LAG seem like the devil? It seems to me that a LAG player with excellent hand reading ability would make far far more money than a TAG player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you understand that the "L" in "LAG" means TOO-LOOSE-to-be-theoretically-profitable-against-given-opponents?

It doesn't mean "properly-loosen-up-to-adjust-to-your-overly-loose-opponents".

Kenny

[bdk3clash]

Some hands are just too criznappy to play profitably no matter how good you are postflop.

[Cerril]

What qualifies as 'tight' preflop is really dependent on the game and your opponents. Some hands, the vast majority really, are losers in any position. Many more are losers in most positions - and that's not read dependent.

Now the difference between a TAG that plays low teens (percentage of) hands, mid-high teens hands, and low 20s hands is based on that postflop play.

In the short run you can find tables where almost any two cards are playable. In NL where it's 8 people unraised to the flop and some people will call down stupidly high bets with anything, it's not terrible to call with many more hands and look for the near-nuts or nuts. In any game where the texture is incredibly weak-tight, you can steal blinds and other bets by betting and raising with junk, whether you hit or not. If your opponents are so easily read that they're practically playing with their cards on the table, you can play slightly more hands since you're never going to get trapped. In that last case, however, you still need to play cards that win more often than they lose or you're not going to make back your initial investment in the cards.

Essentially, the implication is that 'LAG' means overly loose. A LAG with a 32/12 VP$IP/PFR and excellent postflop skills probably -would- make more money than a 20/8 TAG with and very poor postflop skills or a 6/6, no matter what their postflop skills.

[sthief09]

I agree with you for the most part kenny, but another description of the 'L' in LAG is "loosely" aggressive. A loose-aggressive player has loose raising standards and is overaggressive. If you took a TAG, then had him had a few hands, he would just be a "good player that plays a lot of unprofitable hands because he overestimates his ability to outplay his oppoentns." LAG, TAG, LP, and TP don't really tell the whole story. how could you group players into 4 rigid categories? plenty of players don't fit into any category. Some TAGs are tricky, some are straightforward, some are rockishly tight, while others are on the loose end of the spectrum.

[sthief09]

Buy This Book (http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=5266168&meta_id=null)

[CurryLover]

Some of the best players in the world are (relatively) LAG. They have a ridiculously high level of skill at hand/people reading and can outplay their opponents on the flop and after. By playing a few more hands than might be considered optimum, they maximise their profit because they have more opportunities to outplay their opponents.

I imagine the top players could play their cards blind in certain games and still win. Doyle mentions this in SS.

That does not mean that a LAG style is the best one for us mere mortals, however. We do not have the unbelievably high level of skill that the very top players have. For this reason, most players who play in a LAG style will not win, because they lack the skills to do so. Some players have heard that the very best players are LAG and so try to play like this themselves. They are doomed to failure. If you play LAG you are really pushing your hand/people reading skills to the maximum. The majority of players will not have sufficient skills to withstand this pressure. For your average 'good' player, a TAG style is the one most likely to get the money.

Another point is that perhaps it is not correct to talk about LAG or TAG or whatever. The best player is the one who can adapt his style to the game he is in, and the opponents he faces. This includes changing gears of course, so sometimes it may be the right time to play in a LAG style for a while even if you normally play TAG. Furthermore, against some players a weak/tight passive style can work well at certain times. In other words, the best players may have a preferred style, but one of the things that makes them great is their ability to adapt to the current situation.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the best players in the world are (relatively) LAG. They have a ridiculously high level of skill at hand/people reading and can outplay their opponents on the flop and after. By playing a few more hands than might be considered optimum, they maximise their profit because they have more opportunities to outplay their opponents.

I imagine the top players could play their cards blind in certain games and still win. Doyle mentions this in SS.

That does not mean that a LAG style is the best one for us mere mortals, however. We do not have the unbelievably high level of skill that the very top players have. For this reason, most players who play in a LAG style will not win, because they lack the skills to do so. Some players have heard that the very best players are LAG and so try to play like this themselves. They are doomed to failure. If you play LAG you are really pushing your hand/people reading skills to the maximum. The majority of players will not have sufficient skills to withstand this pressure. For your average 'good' player, a TAG style is the one most likely to get the money.

Another point is that perhaps it is not correct to talk about LAG or TAG or whatever. The best player is the one who can adapt his style to the game he is in, and the opponents he faces. This includes changing gears of course, so sometimes it may be the right time to play in a LAG style for a while even if you normally play TAG. Furthermore, against some players a weak/tight passive style can work well at certain times. In other words, the best players may have a preferred style, but one of the things that makes them great is their ability to adapt to the current situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes... Yes... adapt. "Be like water" -- Bruce Lee.

[ginko]

A smart LAG player can terrorize a TAG player and pretty much any table. Not only are you stealing pots, your table image is supurb for when you actually make a hand.


The best player is a combo of the two. Someone that can switch at any given moment and adjust to the game and opponents.

[MaGi]

If you're talking about some uncanny ability, like you know what everyone has all the time then okay, maybe you're right.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does everyone here advocate being TAG and making LAG seem like the devil? It seems to me that a LAG player with excellent hand reading ability would make far far more money than a TAG player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the statement is too generalised to mean much.

A LAG style works well when opponents are playing too tight as in some short handed games, or playing with scared money as in most tournaments and some big bet cash games. Even when it is possible to play a winning LAG style, it is much more difficult than playing a winning TAG style.

In a full limit hold’em ring game, with one LAG player and nine TAG players; the LAG is a dead duck.

[mrjim]

Playing on line severly limits your hand reading, so that aspect that makes LAG beneficial is taken away. Also, when playing against bad players, hand reading is much more difficult because the players behave erradically and make bad, unreasonable decisions. Most people here play online with bad players, which is why we (generally) play TAG.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
A smart LAG player can terrorize a TAG player and pretty much any table

[/ QUOTE ]

No, a smart LAG player can terrorize a weak-tight player.

[davidross]

Maybe we need a new term PAG (progerly Aggressive). I guess it's possible to be too tight, but I've never run into someone like that. THese terms are usually used referring to limit poker, where the opportunity to outplay your opponents is very limited. SOmeone who plays too many hands simply can't overcome the number of times he's going to lose to someone who won't lay down no matter what.

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you for the most part kenny, but another description of the 'L' in LAG is "loosely" aggressive. A loose-aggressive player has loose raising standards and is overaggressive. If you took a TAG, then had him had a few hands, he would just be a "good player that plays a lot of unprofitable hands because he overestimates his ability to outplay his oppoentns." LAG, TAG, LP, and TP don't really tell the whole story. how could you group players into 4 rigid categories? plenty of players don't fit into any category. Some TAGs are tricky, some are straightforward, some are rockishly tight, while others are on the loose end of the spectrum.

[/ QUOTE ]

well said. it's stereo-typing. it's like saying all chinese ppl drive poorly (even though it would be true for myself...)

[BottlesOf]

Doesn't seem like that to me.