slydeni
02-27-2005, 02:17 PM
"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
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