What is the difference between a good SS player and a medium high one?

[TiltsMcFabulous]

Hello all,

First, let me say that I have a lot of deference for all of the good players on this site, both small stakes and mid-high, so please don't construe my question as anything but an honest inquiry.

What I am wondering is what the difference is between a solid TAG at low limits and one at higher limits. I honestly have no idea what the differences are. When I read the SS forum, the advice given by good players is generally good, solid advice. Maybe a bit too ABC sometimes, but generally very solid.

When I read the advice on the high stakes forum, the advice seems very laggy (and this mirrors the games, as I have logged a few thousand hands at 15-30 and up). It is of course very aggressive, but it seems to me that being very aggressive in highly marginal situations is just a way to increase variance, not necessarily winrate. Most of the advice is excellent, but it often appears on the surface to me to be actively poor, with mindless aggression replacing the cautious aggression that is the hallmark of the TAG style of play. I probably just don't understand, but it seems to me that a good low limit TAG is a decent card reader, can play short handed, plays proper starting cards, and extracts good value from them. What more would be required at high stakes? Borderline nutty aggression?? Is that the big difference?

So I have concluded that I don't really understand what skills a good TAG at low limits must possess to make the leap to mid-high stakes other than the skills he or she already possesses. And when I say I don't understand, I mean it. My analysis of the laggishness of high stakes advice is almost certainly flawed, and I know this.

Anything helpful on ths topic would be much appreciated. Please try to limit the useless flames, as I really do want to know more about this issue and I ask the question with nothing but respect for the players and posters here.

~ Tilts

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
it seems to me that a good low limit TAG is a decent card reader, can play short handed, plays proper starting cards, and extracts good value from them. What more would be required at high stakes?

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you are assuming too much regarding the abilities of a decent low-limit TAG (especially regarding those qualities that I have bolded above).

There exists a continuum of ability with respect to these abilities. For instance, I would argue that most typical low-limit TAGs are relatively poor at extracting value from hands (particularly 'marginal' ones). Hand-reading ability is another skill that can always be improved on. And being good at short-handed play is by no means inherent in the ability to beat a low-limit ring game (this last point is a biggie).

Conversely, regarding the issue of starting hand requirements, I would argue that a significant number of winning low-limit TAGs perhaps play a little too "ABC" in this area. Some situations call for unorthodox preflop plays.


Finally, I would like to say that when I first finished reading SSH, I felt that it taught me a wealth of information. And it did. At that time, I think I can relate to the questions you're posing now: I wondered, "Now that I know all the stuff that SSH has taught me, what more could there be to learn?"

Unfortunately, the answers only become clear as one improves their own game and reaches 'the next level.' There are several instances in my young poker career where 'lightbulbs' have gone off in my head and thought, "Ohhhhhhhh, nooowwww I get what they were saying....."

The best part is, there still an indefinite amount of learning to come - for me and for everyone.

I look forward to it.



Adam

[Bubu]

As you go up in limits you just get more comfortable losing ever larger amounts of money.

[oreogod]

Couldnt agree more. Ive had the lightbulb flash 2-3 times now. The first was after reading SSHE, the second was after playing a ton, reading a few more books, going over SSHE...this lightbulb flash was were all the basic concepts just gelled one day, all kind of working together without much thought from me.

The 3rd wasnt what Id call a flash, but a gradual climb to another summit. The point where your play becomes completely situational. Where you adapt and move depending on others. Playing cards while also completely playing your opponents, going by your reads...etc. Raising hands that would be folded against all others except one player at your table...etc. This is just general stuff. But the point Im talking about is just past the point where all the books can take you. Where your game is solid, situational and adabtable to all game situtions.

Thats kind of where Im at. It is really the point where the only further things that can help your game is the forums (specfically Mid-High Limit forum for me)/talking with other more experienced players and table experience.

Its kind of a general outline, Im sure I still have a ton to learn as well...I learn something new everyday, good session or bad, there is always at least one thing Im picking up.

PS. As far as the book issue, I still belive you should re-read TOP, HPFAP and SSHE every 6 months or so. Also Im reading Poker Essays 1-3 and Inside the Poker mind for the first time and picking up new things there as well.

Dont know if that answers your question, but its the closest I could come to what I know.

[TiltsMcFabulous]

Thanks Adam, I appreciate the answer. However, I honestly don't understand what the "lightbulbs" are supposed to be (or even what they are supposed to look like). I have been playing now for a while (200k+ hands) with a healthy WR. I watch (and play occassionally) in the higher limit games, and I really don't understand what they are supposed to "get" that I don't (so far I am a solid winner at 15-30, but obviously sample size is way too small and I could still utterly blow at that level). Sure, it's more aggressive and tricky, but any decent SS TAG knows how to neutralize a LAG/tricky player pretty effectively (or at least I assume they do, and I am pretty sure I do).

I haven't had these questions since reading SSHE, either. In fact, SSHE seemed to be highly tailored to beating only small stakes games, and the advice would be incorrect in many cases in higher games (where the opponents may be trickier and more aggressive, but are also playing better cards and saving their trickiness for good spots).

It's really after my latest reasing of HEFAP that I had these questions. As I read it, I found myself knowing everything already and fully understanding it on an intuitive level (or so I think, haha). Given that I assume the mid-high players know something about poker that is beyond what is in HEFAP, my question became: what? What do they understand about poker that a good player from lower limits doesn't? What do they know that I don't?

My conclusion so far is ... well, nothing really. The difference appears to be a willingness to gamble it up more in marginal spots and less risk aversion. I am well aware that this conclusion sucks and is likely wrong. So I wish I knew what the answers were, and sadly I don't. And I'm not sure I want to spend a few thousand moving up for good and finding out that yes, indeed, higher stakes players do know more about the game, and they will use this mystery knowledge to pummel me. :P

~ Tilts

[TiltsMcFabulous]

[ QUOTE ]
Couldnt agree more. Ive had the lightbulb flash 2-3 times now. The first was after reading SSHE, the second was after playing a ton, reading a few more books, going over SSHE...this lightbulb flash was were all the basic concepts just gelled one day, all kind of working together without much thought from me.

The 3rd wasnt what Id call a flash, but a gradual climb to another summit. The point where your play becomes completely situational. Where you adapt and move depending on others. Playing cards while also completely playing your opponents, going by your reads...etc. Raising hands that would be folded against all others except one player at your table...etc. This is just general stuff. But the point Im talking about is just past the point where all the books can take you. Where your game is solid, situational and adabtable to all game situtions.

Thats kind of where Im at. It is really the point where the only further things that can help your game is the forums (specfically Mid-High Limit forum for me)/talking with other more experienced players and table experience.

Its kind of a general outline, Im sure I still have a ton to learn as well...I learn something new everyday, good session or bad, there is always at least one thing Im picking up.

PS. As far as the book issue, I still belive you should re-read TOP, HPFAP and SSHE every 6 months or so. Also Im reading Poker Essays 1-3 and Inside the Poker mind for the first time and picking up new things there as well.

Dont know if that answers your question, but its the closest I could come to what I know.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a really interesting response, thank you. The adaptability is something I had considered, but sort of assumed any decent TAG had. But your example about folding cards against every player but one at the table is really thought provoking. I'm not sure I am quite at that level yet, or trust my reads quite that much yet.

~ Tilts

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]

That was a really interesting response, thank you. The adaptability is something I had considered, but sort of assumed any decent TAG had. But your example about folding cards against every player but one at the table is really thought provoking. I'm not sure I am quite at that level yet, or trust my reads quite that much yet.

~ Tilts

[/ QUOTE ]

Well most decent tags will generally have some adaptability. I know I did a bit at that level. But the more you study and play, the more and more this really kicks into gear. You get to a point where you have solid postflop play/concepts locked down and you realize...this hand is pretty marginal, but I can outplay these guys (if u have a read and how they act postflop), etc.

I remember reading some posts by Mid/High guys that had their preflop numbers at about 21-23 percent of hands played. I was at 16-18 vpip at the time and I thought that was pretty loose. My numbers have taken a jump to about the same area (just under 22).

Anyway as u get better you also steal more, play better short, get better playing aggressive in HU situations.

Example, here is a hand from the past I would have played way way different if not for experience.

Preflop: Hero is BB with 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif, K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, SB completes, Hero checks.

Flop: (2 SB) 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB calls.

Turn: (3 BB) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB calls.

River: (7 BB) J/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 9 BB

I won the hand. He actually had 75o. I though he probably had a gutshot (playing 78s, so the turned sucked giving him a double gutter or maybe a hand like J9, J8) -- then his bet on the end, I thought I might actually be beat and maybe I got his hand wrong, as I fully expected him to check (either way I really hated that jack, gut feeling). But I probably would have folded by the at least the turn, if this hand taken place a few months before.

[Moozh]

I don't really have anything useful to add as I feel I'm in a somewhat similar place as you (although likely not quite as successful).

I just wanted to say that this is a great question and it's something we should all keep reviewing. Also, I really wish you'd post more as I think there are a lot of us who could really benefit from your participation.

[jason_t]

they write short consise posts of roughly 3 lines max so people will actually read them

[silvershade]

I haven't been playing very long but I'm guessing that the differences lie mainly in being able to read your opponent and put him on a hand more accurately, that and the ability to include just the right amount of deception to avoid being easy to read yourself. Experience of course is another difference, in most areas in life if you have faced a range of similar situations in the past it is easier to adjust to a fresh situation in the present.

I'm guessing that a SS TAG knows much of the stuff that a more advanced player does, he just doesnt necessarily have the experience to know when a specific play is better than another.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
But the point Im talking about is just past the point where all the books can take you. Where your game is solid, situational and adabtable to all game situtions.


[/ QUOTE ]


I like that part.


Adam

[TiltsMcFabulous]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That was a really interesting response, thank you. The adaptability is something I had considered, but sort of assumed any decent TAG had. But your example about folding cards against every player but one at the table is really thought provoking. I'm not sure I am quite at that level yet, or trust my reads quite that much yet.

~ Tilts

[/ QUOTE ]

Well most decent tags will generally have some adaptability. I know I did a bit at that level. But the more you study and play, the more and more this really kicks into gear. You get to a point where you have solid postflop play/concepts locked down and you realize...this hand is pretty marginal, but I can outplay these guys (if u have a read and how they act postflop), etc.

I remember reading some posts by Mid/High guys that had their preflop numbers at about 21-23 percent of hands played. I was at 16-18 vpip at the time and I thought that was pretty loose. My numbers have taken a jump to about the same area (just under 22).

Anyway as u get better you also steal more, play better short, get better playing aggressive in HU situations.

Example, here is a hand from the past I would have played way way different if not for experience.

Preflop: Hero is BB with 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif, K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, SB completes, Hero checks.

Flop: (2 SB) 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB calls.

Turn: (3 BB) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB calls.

River: (7 BB) J/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 9 BB

I won the hand. He actually had 75o. I though he probably had a gutshot (playing 78s, so the turned sucked giving him a double gutter or maybe a hand like J9, J8) -- then his bet on the end, I thought I might actually be beat and maybe I got his hand wrong, as I fully expected him to check (either way I really hated that jack, gut feeling). But I probably would have folded by the at least the turn, if this hand taken place a few months before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting hand. What I found most intersting was the VPIP numbers, though. I was solid winner player for about 75K hands at 18% or so, and then the light sort of went on in terms of really having postflop play concepts down. Since then, over about 125k hands, I am at 23% VPIP, yet my BB/100 has been +1.5/100 better between 2-4, 3-6, and 5-10 full games. I thought it might have been an extended run of good luck, but since reading a lot of similar posts, it might just be that I am able to play more hands profitably than before. I do, however, feel like playing 23% would get me ruined at higher stakes. Too many marginal spots where I would surely make costly errors.

~ Tilts

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
Hello all,

First, let me say that I have a lot of deference for all of the good players on this site, both small stakes and mid-high, so please don't construe my question as anything but an honest inquiry.

What I am wondering is what the difference is between a solid TAG at low limits and one at higher limits. I honestly have no idea what the differences are. When I read the SS forum, the advice given by good players is generally good, solid advice. Maybe a bit too ABC sometimes, but generally very solid.

When I read the advice on the high stakes forum, the advice seems very laggy (and this mirrors the games, as I have logged a few thousand hands at 15-30 and up). It is of course very aggressive, but it seems to me that being very aggressive in highly marginal situations is just a way to increase variance, not necessarily winrate. Most of the advice is excellent, but it often appears on the surface to me to be actively poor, with mindless aggression replacing the cautious aggression that is the hallmark of the TAG style of play. I probably just don't understand, but it seems to me that a good low limit TAG is a decent card reader, can play short handed, plays proper starting cards, and extracts good value from them. What more would be required at high stakes? Borderline nutty aggression?? Is that the big difference?

So I have concluded that I don't really understand what skills a good TAG at low limits must possess to make the leap to mid-high stakes other than the skills he or she already possesses. And when I say I don't understand, I mean it. My analysis of the laggishness of high stakes advice is almost certainly flawed, and I know this.

Anything helpful on ths topic would be much appreciated. Please try to limit the useless flames, as I really do want to know more about this issue and I ask the question with nothing but respect for the players and posters here.

~ Tilts

[/ QUOTE ]

What you observed does seem contradictory, doesn't it? That the higher limit players seem much more LAGGY and call down a lot more with marginal holdings. The explanation, to put it very simply, is because the opposition at the higher levels are more observant and capable of taking advantage of any perceived weakness.

In other words, the lower level competition plays the cards more. The competition is more straightforward (good players are TAG) and easier to read. Hence one can more easily put them on a hand and act accordingly. Plus, since pots tend to be multi-way, deception and bluffing is not as important. Hence the best way to beat this game is simply straightforward TAG.

At the higher levels (100/200 or even 30/60), someone who attempts the same strategy would simply get run over. Pots are not often multi-way. Your opponents know it if you're playing too straightforward and will target that 'weakness' to rob you blind. Hence they become more unpredictible. To be successful, you need to also then practice deception and play back at them sometimes with surprisingly weak hands or draws. Or call them down with just Ace high (or king high sometimes).

Hence, watching a high limit game and not knowing all the nuances can make it look like a bunch of idiots with too much money just gambling away. While there is certainly some of that going on, there often times also is a method to the madness.

[TiltsMcFabulous]

I see ... that's sort of what I expected I suppose.

How then does someone get "good" at this somewhat random style of play? It seems to me that anyone who says they have some set of incredible lock reads is not being truthful, and that so many of these situations end up being extremely marginal. What is it about higher limit winners that allows to to extract profit from so many marginal spots. Do they simply pay more attention and memorize betting patterns? Tells or timing tells online? Game theory?

So confused. Thanks to everyone who has tried to help!

~ Tilts

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
they write short consise posts of roughly 3 lines max so people will actually read them

[/ QUOTE ]

lol this is actually the only post I read in this thread.

[timprov]

There are two essential differences between the typical small stakes game and a higher game: less multiway pots, and more second level and higher thinking. Which means better higher players are better postflop in headsup spots, and better at thinking at third level and up.

[ QUOTE ]
How then does someone get "good" at this somewhat random style of play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get a lot of experience, and trust your instincts. You'll be surprised at how much you're right.

[Nigel]

[ QUOTE ]
so far I am a solid winner at 15-30, but obviously sample size is way too small

[/ QUOTE ]

2 days ago you were asking about moving up past low limits, and what type of bankroll requirements one needed for 6 max games, now suddenly you are a "solid winner" at 15/30?

Tilts, your posts really read like you are an eloquent troll. You long windedly ask these heavily debatable questions that have no real answer, and aren't really appropriate from someone of your experience (a 3.81BB/100 winner over 200K+ hands of poker should have these things more or less figured out). Reading back through some of your posts kind of confirm this for me, and I guess I'm not the first person to question your posts.

You're not sure you want to "spend a couple thousand moving up" and finding out you're not as good as you think you are? It sounds like, since you claim you are now a solid winner at 15/30, that you have indeed moved up. What am I missing?

If you are for real, and just earnest, I apologize. In that case, just play your game and stop overanalyzing everything, it'll come as you go. Especially if you try and focus on more specific problems, rather than trying to solve the mysteries of the world. If you keep winning at 15/30, great, move up to the 30. If the 15 is giving you trouble, post some hands.

It's really not any more complex than that.

Nigel

[oreogod]

One thing that might help that I do, and read that Negrenu does this as well. Without being to spefic while in a hand, give your opponent a range of about 20 hands w/ his preflop action. Narrow down from there. By the turn u you should have just about enough info u need to put them on at least a couple hands.

That K2 hand...folded around to SB he completes. So, he doesnt have much unless hes getting tricky, but this can be discounted on the flop action. He bets into me, could be top pair, gutshot, str8 draw (I dont count low pp, why not raise to get me folded out)...when he only calls my raise...narrow down. Turn he bets into me, I raise, he calls. Now he was a decent aggressive player, his turn call I really felt I was good here. He bets into me again on the river...did the jack help him? I thought it might have, maybe he actually had a 6 and was stop and going me...I could raise, but he's going to call one more raise...at least thats what I thought, unless he has nothing. So I call, win the pot. There was more than enough doubt as to what he had for me to call the river.

At the same time he cant give me credit for much, and had he maybe taken a different line, he probably could have gotten me to fold.

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that anyone who says they have some set of incredible lock reads is not being truthful, and that so many of these situations end up being extremely marginal.
[ QUOTE ]


You are 100% right. One weakness that I see in players who can't seem to advance is that they put too much credibility on their reads. They think the proper way to play is to put your opponent on a hand and playing accordingly, including folding a big pot if they think they're beat. The proper way to play is to give your opponent a range of hands and choose the best course of action weighing all the hand possibilities, and the expectation of any given course of action. Often that means making crying calls where you know your chance of winning is probably less than 10%. Or raising as a bluff which may only succeed 25% of the time.

[ QUOTE ]

How then does someone get "good" at this somewhat random style of play?
[ QUOTE ]

Hard to say how to get good at this. I read recently that PokerStars has 2,000,000 registered users. Let's say of those, about 200,000 are still active players. Of those, I'd say there are probably no more than 100 who can beat the 100/200 game consistantly for say 1BB/100. So the percentage of players who get there is fairly small.
What separate those from the others?
I have to say a lot of it is probably natural talent. Some people just have an intuitively better feel for cards. They can read their opponents better, read hands better, instantly see the possibilities of their opponents' hand holdings given the board texture and prior action. Adjust to changing circumstances. etc.
I would say a thorough and accurate conceptual understanding of the game is important. Many players learn to beat smaller games by learning some rote basics. My opinion is that players who've learnt by trial and error or rote can never really advance too far. You need a firm conceptual understanding of the game. They may not be able to put it into words as well as Sklansky and other, but I'd bet almost all successful higher stakes players understand the theories of the game intuitively.
After that, then it's just lots of practice and thinking and a little bit of heart.

[TiltsMcFabulous]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so far I am a solid winner at 15-30, but obviously sample size is way too small

[/ QUOTE ]

2 days ago you were asking about moving up past low limits, and what type of bankroll requirements one needed for 6 max games, now suddenly you are a "solid winner" at 15/30?

Tilts, your posts really read like you are an eloquent troll. You long windedly ask these heavily debatable questions that have no real answer, and aren't really appropriate from someone of your experience (a 3.81BB/100 winner over 200K+ hands of poker should have these things more or less figured out). Reading back through some of your posts kind of confirm this for me, and I guess I'm not the first person to question your posts.

You're not sure you want to "spend a couple thousand moving up" and finding out you're not as good as you think you are? It sounds like, since you claim you are now a solid winner at 15/30, that you have indeed moved up. What am I missing?

If you are for real, and just earnest, I apologize. In that case, just play your game and stop overanalyzing everything, it'll come as you go. Especially if you try and focus on more specific problems, rather than trying to solve the mysteries of the world. If you keep winning at 15/30, great, move up to the 30. If the 15 is giving you trouble, post some hands.

It's really not any more complex than that.

Nigel

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean by "solid" is that my winrate is quite good through a few thousand hands. I know this could be pure dumb luck though, so I am hesitant to read anything into it.

Please don't take a question I asked sincerely, provide no useful response, and call me a troll. I have respect for the other posters here and it would be nice if you returned that respect to me. If you "question my posts" then simply don't read them.

~ Tilts

[TiltsMcFabulous]

[ QUOTE ]
they write short consise posts of roughly 3 lines max so people will actually read them

[/ QUOTE ]


If you don't like poker strategy posts/questions/comments that are longer than 3 lines, what on earth are you doing on a poker strategy forum?? Why are you opening up a question thread, declining to read it, and then taking time to flame the questioner when you didn't want to take the time to read the post in the first place?? Totally baffling.

Oreo, thanks again, another thought provoking post.

~ Tilts

[helpmeout]

Your average SS TAG is weaktight.

You frequently see them taking shots at 15/30.

They are easy to spot, most of them play too tight (15/8 types), they cant adjust to the blind structure, you can make them fold better hands with well timed raises, they are very predictable.

Saying they can play shorthand is laughable. I consider myself a fairly average SH player but I am miles ahead of most SS players.

These are the sort of guys who have read half a dozen 2+2 books and think this is a good enough poker education.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
I am miles ahead of most SS players.

These are the sort of guys who have read half a dozen 2+2 books and think this is a good enough poker education.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree and I had definitly felt that way for a long time.

As far as the book goes, they will give u as much as you want to take out of them. If u study and re-read them and try and apply yourself to grasping the concepts...combine that with experience and in about 4-6 months time u will be miles ahead of many players out there.

When I was starting out deciphering the books was pretty hard for me. Reading this forum helped crack them for me.

[Nightwish]

You have already gotten plenty of good responses. Let me throw something else out there.

A decent fraction the advice you read in Mid/High is just bad. As in really bad. And yes, some of it has to do with overplaying hands without any rhyme or reason. So be careful with what you read there. The majority of the advice is good, but you do run into some bad advice....and unfortunately, it sometimes comes from people who post a lot. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[bicyclekick]

I dont have time to read anything more than the first post right now but I'll give you a quick answer as we were actually discussing this in the car earlier today.

A top player over a decent player does the following better:
*makes more bet saving folds on the turn and river
*makes better calls on the river to win more pots
*gets other players to fold better hands occaisionally (but much less often than you'd think)
*plays his draws effectively and efficiently
*hand reads better (kinda similar to the folding/calling on the river etc.
*gets more and better value out of not only his great holdings but his ok holdings
*loses the least with his 2nd bests
*gets inside other players heads
*the ability to mix it up properly

That sounds all simplistic...but it mostly comes down to hand reading and intuition...and the rest is pretty easy to learn (the actual play)

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
they write short consise posts of roughly 3 lines max so people will actually read them

[/ QUOTE ]

just continue posting 300 times a day in OOT and sci/math/phi and leave threads like this alone troll.

[yanicehand]

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't understand what the "lightbulbs" are supposed to be (or even what they are supposed to look like).

[/ QUOTE ]

not meant to be too sarcastic, but this is pretty much the definition of a lightbulb going on. it reveals something you couldn't see before.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't understand what the "lightbulbs" are supposed to be (or even what they are supposed to look like).

[/ QUOTE ]

not meant to be too sarcastic, but this is pretty much the definition of a lightbulb going on. it reveals something you couldn't see before.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
you do run into some bad advice....and unfortunately, it sometimes comes from people who post a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]


I resemble that remark!!!


Seriously....this has been a pretty interesting thread.
oreo, phish and bikekick all had some very nice posts in here.

as far as 'light-bulbs' going off. That's exactly how I have been feeling about it too.
I've had a few light-bulbs in my tourney game within the past few months.
More recently, I feel I have been having some serious light-bulbs on my limit ring-game play.
I read a passage out of HEFAP or SSHE or the King Yao book or Barry Greenstein's book and something about it just rings true with me and I start seeing hands a new light.
This leads to me successfully implementing one of the steps that bike-kick laid out.

I have a long long long way to go....and I feel I'm only at the beginning stages of this light-bulb and I'm kind of awkwardly fumbling my way through it a little bit....but my play IS improving without a doubt and I'm just seeing the game a bit more clearly these days.


I've been experimenting with playing fewer tables online and focusing more on the opponents (but sometimes will also play more tables and just grind like usual).
I also think that my 17 stretch in Vegas during the WSOP was helpful as I had never played so much live poker in my life.
Sitting there for hand after hand and actually paying attention to what was going on....and then swinging by the poker-trade show and picking up some books and reading a bit,....and then going back and playing again...etc etc.
well...I wouldn't be surprised if my opponents could practically hear the wheels spinning in my head as I thought about different poker-type concepts.


Regarding Mason's poker-essays books. I have the 2nd and 3rd of these (and should really get the 1st).
These are dandy freaking books. Some of the hand examples really take you into the heart of a higher-stakes level of thinking on a specific hand.
IK hadn't read those in several mths though so I'm guessing I would get even more out of that type of stuff if I looked through it again.


For a decent example of the type of hands I find really interesting from 'the Mason' just go to this month's 2+2 magazine and read his 'simple hand' article.
It's fairly typical stuff from him as far as the depth he can go to within just one hand.


I also got inspired reading a couple different parts of Barry Greenstein's book. One of those parts had to do with his admission that he makes SEVERAL mistakes in EVERY session of poker that he plays.
Something like that can get you out of the mind-set of 'I generally play correctly' pretty quick (as so many new posters like to say imo) and gets you to the mind-set of 'even the very best players in the world are trying to improve their play and learn from their mistakes'.

[Noo Yawk]

"What I am wondering is what the difference is between a solid TAG at low limits and one at higher limits. I honestly have no idea what the differences are."

TAG's at lower limits only need to know enough to beat bad players. This is not true as you go up in stakes and your competition get's tougher.

"When I read the advice on the high stakes forum, the advice seems very laggy"

When you're playing better players, their aggression usually means more than "I have a big hand". This is also true as the pots are often contended with fewer players. You need to adjust to that. The problem many players have is not re-adjusting when the weaker players get aggressive.


"So I have concluded that I don't really understand what skills a good TAG at low limits must possess to make the leap to mid-high stakes other than the skills he or she already possesses"

Hand reading and the ability to corectly adjust to different players and the way they are playing at any particular moment. That includes hand range,number of opponents, position, state of mind, their opponents, how they percieve you, etc.

[TiltsMcFabulous]

Quite helpful, thank you.

~ Tilts

[Neal_Schon]

Tilts,

I've watched Neverwin play thousands of hands.


I'll tell you the biggest difference between him and you.


He is willing to play marginal hands like Q8s against weak opponents.

[TiltsMcFabulous]

[ QUOTE ]
Tilts,

I've watched Neverwin play thousands of hands.


I'll tell you the biggest difference between him and you.


He is willing to play marginal hands like Q8s against weak opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not funny or correct.

If you are implying I am too tight, my VPIP is 23% in full ring. I just pick better spots that Q8 (because it's sooted) to play my marginal hands.

~ Tilts

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
Your average SS multitabling TAG is weaktight...They are easy to spot, most of them play too tight (15/8 types), they cant adjust to the blind structure, you can make them fold better hands with well timed raises, they are very predictable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Made a small adjustment but I agree with this.

EDIT: There's a post in the Zoo about the low limit games on Absolute recently that pretty much demonstrates this too.

[CORed]

The main difference as you move up is the way your opponents play. At the lower limits, you make most of your money off of clueless calling stations. An ABC approach will make money. You are often pushing small pot equity edges against multiple opponents, whether you are playing strong draws or TPGK or overpair hands.

At the higher limits, calling stations become fewer and farther between. Preflop raises are more likely to draw re-raises (sometimes from incredibly poor hands) than cold calls. You will go to a lot more flops head-up or three-way intstead of 4-6 handed. Your opponents will bluff and semi-bluff a lot more--some well, some very badly. The player that you make most of your money from here is the tricky LAG. Most of these players pay attention to how you play and read pretty well, but they play way too many hands pre-flop and tend to overplay marginal hands postflop. If you play a tight predictable game, and fold too quickly, they can beat you. If you play better cards than they do, and use their excessive agression against them, you can make a lot of money from them. Deception becomes much more important agqainst this type of opponent. Semi-bluffs, check-raises and slow-plays that would probably just cost you money against loose passive opponents become vital weapons in your arsenal. You need to mix up your play. When you hold a strong hand against these players, you will sometimes bet all the way, sometimes throw in a check-raise on the flop or turn, sometimes, in late position, you will wait for the turn or even a river to raise. You want to make it hard for them to put you on a hand. In short, you want to play just as tricky as the tricky LAG, but better. This is a fine line. If you are not careful, you will become the tricky LAG who is donating to the better player.

Another player you will make some money from in mid-limit games is the tilted table coach. This is often somebody who has read a book or too, and thinks he knows a lot more than he does. He may have had some success at lower limits and decided to take a shot higher. He wants to play an ABC weak-tight or TAG game, and thinks anybody that doesn't play this way is an idiot. You can make a little money from him just by semi-bluffing appropriately and maybe with river bluffs when he appears to have missed a draw. but to really make money from him you have to get him to tilt. Semi-bluffs, or agressive value betting and raising with strong draws are often very effective when your draw hits and cracks his TPTK or overpair. When he starts to tell you how stupid you are, you've got him. He will, depending on his personality, start to play back at you with marginal hands, or turn into a calling station. At this point, you can switch to ABC TAG mode, and clean him out.

Of course, these are broad generalizations, and you have to adapt your play to your opponents.

In general, the postflop play at the higer limits is quite a bit better than at the low limits. However, the preflop play is often surprisingly bad. Cold-calling is much rairer, and an EP raise will end up stealing the blinds fairly often, but a lot of people will still limp in, or sometimes even reraise, with incredibly bad hands. Open raises from late or late-middle positions generally get little respect, many players will over-defend blinds and the button. Solid preflop play is often enough to get an edge, if you also play well post-flop.