Instant Karma's gonna get ya...

[slydeni]

"You know what you are. You're a superstar. Well right you are. " - Lennon

So I've been reading a lot lately about how these younger tournament stars (Negraneau, Keller, Hanson, etc.) like to play lotsa hands. And I am not talking about final table play. This is early-mid tournament play as well. Recent articles in card player imply that it is best to NOT play conservatively, and tight; but to look for limp opportunities and trap people; play lotsa hands and to ignore Sklansky's hand rankings.

So then, if you pick up any of the "old schoolers" books they condone tighter play and very selective playmaking. I assume the new guys would also be all for "selective playmaking" but their criteria that describes "selective" seems different.

My issue: which way is more effective? Is this a matter of style? In Harrington;s book, he implies a looser aggressive style is very strong, but that the most important thing is to find where you feel at home - with a style - and go with that.

I remember in high school there was a guy who got all the girls. Every other guy (including yours truly at times) tried to be like him: mimic his dress, his walk, laugh, attitude, etc. in hopes to score with the ladies. It did not work for anyone but the studmeister. Later in life, we realize it is important to reall accentuate the nice aspects of our own personalities to attract the things we want - and thus we become unique in our own right.

And so again, I see the bridge between poker and life. I think I agree with Harrington here. It is important to find where you are most comfortable, and really let your own self glow through while implementing YOUR style - all the while,still being able to adapt, of course, should the situation require it.

If anyone has any thoughts on the effectiveness of the different style, I would love to hear it.

"Well we all shine on...like the moon and the stars, and the sun." - Lennon

[ninjaunderwear]

If anything, the differences in style keep the game interesting. We've all been at tables with only super-tight players, and there's nothing like a LAG coming in to bring in some greatly needed action.

As for which style is more effective, they've both got their advantages and disadvantages. But, like you/Harrington said, you've got to find a style you're comfortable with really use your own strengths to make it work. It would be interesting to see Hansen and Harrington switch styles, but I don't think it would be pretty.

[slydeni]

Yah I feel ya.
Its an interesting thing, however, that the guys employing the more chaotic style (i.e. playing lots more hands) are the ones winning more and in the spotlight. Sure, Harrington is great and such... but I am wondering if the looser style is a better one to be inclined to.

[calmasahinducow]

If you're as skillful as Negreanu, Ivey, Hansen, Farha, et. all, you can play a lot of hands because their post-flop play is extremely strong. This is not the case for the average player or even the good player. Like Harrington says, different styles suit different people. Hyper-aggresive players either go bust quick or get a nice chip lead and cruise as Daniel N. has done so many times.

[Blackjack]

Greeeaat post. The hard part is just finding out who you are.

[zaxx19]

Ill comment again that alot of the relative merits for each style(LAG versus TAG) when regarding MTT play can be determined by field size. 15 yrs ago when TJ was cleaning up his "survive then start firing " strategy probably was optimal...nowadays with fields in the thousands at times it just rarely gives yu enough chips to be a factor later in the tourney without the help of alot of premium hands.

In past times perhaps a tight player like TJ would go to the final 3 tables with only 1/2 the chips of a Stu Ungar nowadays an aggressive player can accrue such a chip edge that it will be harder to overcome.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're as skillful as Negreanu, Ivey, Hansen, Farha, et. all, you can play a lot of hands

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can't, at least at the tournaments I normally play at. The key difference between these "new age" players and us is that they typically play tournaments with much deeper chip stacks. So their implied odds are huge when they hit a hand.

Example, playing 22 against a 5BB raise might make sense when stacks are 100BB for hours, hit your set against a big pair and you might win their whole stack.

But try this style at your local B&M with starting stacks at 50BB, and dropping to 25BB when the blinds double in the first 20 minutes. You'll often get shortstacked real fast.