Tight-Agressive Outdated?

While reading an interview with Daniel Negreanu I was suprised by his evaluation of playing styles today.

"Negreanu clearly revels in his wild-card reputation, but he says there is a definite method to his madness. He believes it's becoming increasingly difficult to win with a traditional tight-agressive style, in which you wait for big hands and play them forcefully. As a result he enters more pots than anyone at poker's highest levels. While most players get involved in at most two or three hands out of 10, Negreanu doesn't mind playing five or six.
"It's the correct strategy" he says. "In the old days, there was this myth that you have to play tight and only play certain hands. Poker has evolved. The mathematics behind what everybody thought was correct-the 'book play' is absolutely not correct anymore [because there are so many less experienced and often reckless players coming to poker]. It's way too conservative. The way the game was played in 1980, if somebody raised and then there was a reraise, that meant a premium hand. Slansky even wrote that you should lay down pocket Jacks in that situation. Well, the way the game is played now, the first raise could be 10-8 suited and the next raise Ace-8."

I'm very intrigued by this statement. Negraneau's results consinstently show winning results in today's large pools of players. However, I assume his cash game stlye (high stakes) is much more conservative.

Is this the way to play optimum tournament and middle limit Poker for 2005?

(Interview if excerpted from 'Aces and Kings' by Michael Kaplan and Brad Reagan)

Its often noted that at loose tables you should play tight and at tight tables, loose. So while tight aggressive is becoming the norm, a few people are taking advantage and playing a looser game. It doesn't mean that tight-aggressive is outdated, just that there are times to do it, and times to loosen up.

Well, in my opinion tight-agressive still work but in most cases it's not the best strategy anymore precisely there are a lot of players thinking like that, playing like that and by the way, thinking that you should think like that.

You are not taking the most, for sure, if you play the way that are playing at least (sometimes even more) about three or four players at the table.

I dont play tight-agressive at all and almost could say that i refuse my self to do it...

I can give you an example: somedays ago I was at at table, near the button and just after a tight/agressive player that knew me (more or less) and that we had already talked on the msn and so over. On that hand there were already four players on bet when he made a raise (i would be the fifht) and was thinking if i should call or fold having K8s (I am talking about a low limit and loose table and that is the kind of hand that I fold or not depending on the specific conditions). Well, when he raised I immediatly made my decision: call!

I ended winning the hand (what is not so important in itself) but what made he come to talk to me very confused. Since he had Pokertracker and he knew what kind of performance I have he came and told me: «how the hell you called my raise with K8s?... I raised precisely because I wanted you to fold if you had something average like that!»

And my answer was: that is exactly why I called!... And more: your raise made my hand much more easy to play after the flop and enlarged the draws that could became playable. I would have no problem folding it just on the flop if it went useless for me. But if I hit something good on it or a decent draw (or even something average with a backdoor draw) i am on the run for a big pot!

My answer was around that.

Of course, I play most based on implied odds since I play on low limit tables and I know what I am doing after the flop. But, on those days, playing tight and just premium hands is just a waste. You are putting aside profitable hands if you know how to play them... and against who you play them.

That doesnt mean, although, that you cant make money playing tight-agressive. You can, sure, you still can.

It is the best way?

I dont believe it is...

[Triumph36]

This (loose table, tight, tight table, loose) is exactly the maxim that's being challenged by Negraneau - he's saying you have to get in there and gamble with the loose players, rather than wait for big hands and try to smash them that way.

interesting topic, and obviously to any beginners reading this, we are talking about no-limit and guys like negreanu having outstanding reads.

never sure what tight-aggressive is though. waiting around for top 10 hands will make it so you last deep into tournaments but doubt you'll have much chance of cashing in big tournaments.

when i read about well-known players getting eliminated in the last WSOP, i was shocked at how often it was QQ against KK or something similar suggesting people are very tight.

it does strike me though that players like negreanu, hanson and ivey did very well initially taking advantage of tight=aggressive players, but now i'd assume people play back at them and it isn't as effective...although as i said, these guys have great reads too.

dan harrington suggests very tight play early in tournaments and he's done very, very well at WSOP. i think he is very, very aggressive though when the blinds getting bigger

[Ed S.]

Wouldn't that make the variance run a little bit higher?

Ed S.

sorry, maybe i'm confused... but what is "tight/aggressive"???.. is playing A8s on the button with 6 seeing the flop "consistent" with tight aggressive??

i think partially what's happened is that people that played poker heavily 10 years ago were often facing very tight games. so thoughts of flushes and straights weren't as prevalent.

i know if i put my wilson software with all tight players then you are pretty much forced to play pockets pairs and high cards x 2.... you really need loose players to loosen up, i think.

sorry, not sure exactly where that was supposed to be going.

Interesting topic and interesting stament from Daniel Negranue. I sort of thought along similar lines when reading <u>Super System</u>, Doyle talks about putting in a raise with midlevel suited connectors, which is definatley aggressive, but not so tight. But like almost everything in poker I think it definatley depends on the table. It seems today that alot of times those big pocket pairs don't stand up as often as they should in a multi way pot because they are crushed by drawing hands.

[MCS]

Well, DERB seems to think so. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

(see NVG for more on DERB)

[ QUOTE ]
Well, DERB seems to think so. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

(see NVG for more on DERB)

[/ QUOTE ]

Out spreading the word are we?

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry, maybe i'm confused... but what is "tight/aggressive"???.. is playing A8s on the button with 6 seeing the flop "consistent" with tight aggressive??



[/ QUOTE ]

Ya I'd like to hear daniels definition of tight aggressive. Who isnt calling A8s on the button, or raising with it to steal the blinds? I think that there is a difference between bad tight aggressive (playing top 10% of hands) and good tight aggressive (picking spots to play more marginal hands, but generally still playing a 15-18 vpip game).

I also dont see how loose aggressive is going to play that much better at the low limits. I'm playing the $25 NL right now and Tight aggressive works perfectly fine. I just dont see pushing people around or having a loose table image is going to help when people are calling down with top pair no kicker all the way to second and sometimes third pair.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I think the best approach to the TAG-trend is to increase the aggressiveness. Be a tad more aggressive (semibluff and bluff) than the other TAGs but not too agressive. Hard balance to find, but possible. Also call a bit more with marginal hands, since pot odds for calling due to bluff possibility often is there when playing against TAGs.

Well..all the poker theory I have read emphasizes the importance of making your opponents do mistakes. They don't speak about sitting around only playing the top 15% of your hands unless you are playing with players where this technique will actually pay you off (iow. they are making mistakes).

The Tight/Aggressive playstyle has never implied that you should be an easy to read nitwit that everybody can put on a range of hands when he bets.

but if you are trying to bluff calling stations, then you are the one making the mistakes.

i think bluffing and pushing people around works 1000% better at high stakes and/or no-limit (decent minimum $$$$)... at low stakes, i've found it's pointless to make major plays on people.

i think as i asked and someone else mentioned. it's a definitional thing. play really small % of hands in early-mid position and then loosen up on suited cards particularly in late position and in the blinds. but don't start thinking any two suited cards from any position.

BTW, negreanu and hanson would get killed in small-stakes limit if they tried to make similar plays. i'm sure they know that. i mean, they're optimizing their games for the situation. and low limit = difficult to get people with a decent hand to fold.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't that make the variance run a little bit higher?

Ed S.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but in tournament play I think you want high variance. Low variance means you're going to bubble out or just finish in the money a lot of the time. High variance means that more often you will be out early or be out in the higher money finishes.

If you play tight at a loose tournament table, you are passing up small edges for big ones that may never come.

[Peter666]

It is obvious with the poker boom that there are a lot more bad players who play loosely.

Hence 2+2 Published winning SSHE which is strategy for these games. You cannot call Sklansky outdated as he was one of the authours of the book. You must adjust your playing style to the style of the game. While many tables are loose, there are still some tight ones. Adjust accordingly.

Espousing only one type of style universally is stupid. It's the same like Caro saying that only psychology matters in poker which is not the case. Each situation is different.

[AaronBrown]

I like to define "tight" as only entering pots you think you have better than an even chance of winning if they're dealt to showdown. If you play loose, whether in general by playing more hands or on one hand for deception purposes, you can make money either (a) because more than one other player is in the pot or (b) because you figure you can make more money when you hit than you lose when you don't hit.

If everyone else is playing tight, (a) and (b) don't add much value, so tight is the standard strategy. But if other players are playing loose then (a) and (b) become more valuable. If other players are inexperienced, (b) is particularly valuable.

I think the secret is to be able to switch between tight and loose as the occasion demands, rather than picking one and using it all the time. If you do it right, you are playing loose and everyone is folding because they think you're tight; then you switch to tight just as everyone starts to call you.

[In Paradise]

As far as cash games go, at least at low and mid limits, Daniel is wrong.

Thanks for your thoughts guys, I think this is a great discussion.

Is playing loose only for the most experienced players who are able to sense weakness in others and knowing when they're own hand is beat?

Should us lower limit players stick to the hands we know are profitable always? Hellmuth's supertight strategy comes to mind.

At my casino in Perth Australia they're are only 3 tables, with all of them playing 10-20 Hold Em. As a result the games are relentlessly wild with a very high variance for me. Players frequently raise with hands like 5,6 suited and call with 3,6 offsuit. At least 6 people minimum see the flop with the tables 12 handed.

How should I squeeze every dollar out of this game?

Thanks,
Li.

[ QUOTE ]


BTW, negreanu and hanson would get killed in small-stakes limit if they tried to make similar plays. i'm sure they know that. i mean, they're optimizing their games for the situation. and low limit = difficult to get people with a decent hand to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's interesting that the strategy that a top player uses wouldn't work against less skilled players.

But from what I've seen it's true.

As a small stakes recreational player, I've found that what works for me is playing good solid poker. When I maintain strict starting requirements and play hands agressively, mixing in but not overdoing bluffs and semi-bluffs, I do well. When I start getting cute with marginal hands, things go south.

[Bez]

I've read a Caro article where he suggests in a loose game you should play looser than normal but not as loose as everyone else and tight but not as tight as everyone else in tight games. This was from Card Player some years ago.

[winky51]

TAG is not outdated. I consider myself a TAG but I adjust to players. The same hand vs two players I play differently.

You just have to adjust your style to the players, the players in the pot, players behind, general feel of the table, tells you see, chips in front, and so on. Its a lot of things to take in but in many cases my instincts make a judgement on what to do. I prefer live NL or tournaments as I read players well. The online tournaments I cant read crap.

Its all about adjustment to others and frustrating the other player to the point he plays worse or starts giving off more tells out of frustration.

Although if I play looser I prefer to play a hand that can make 2 draws even something like 95s. Easy to play and can make 2 draws. don't like LAGging with J3o or 92o, K4o or hands like that there are few opportunities there to make a hand or draw.

[NMcNasty]

I think tight-aggressive play is outdated for strictly no-limit brick and mortar tournament poker. A player of Daniel's calibur can and should play hands like 78o, J5s, 37s, etc.. Of course you would never recommend these hands to your average player. I'm sure they're even unprofitable for the top 2+2ers, but for tournament specialists who have been playing the game for 15+ years they work.

Is Daniel playing 5 or 6 hands out of ten in his 4k-8k game? Hell no.

Is playing 5 or 6 hands out of ten correct play for just about any level of limit poker? No.

Tight- Aggresive is the best playing style in poker, hands down.

Since we're talking about a general way to play over the long run, espousing 1 style of play is NOT stupid. Of course you need to change your style occasionaly for a number of valid reasons. However, you should always regress to your basic winning style, which is and will always be for 90% of the WINNING poker population, a tight aggressive approach. This is certainly true with respect NL Holdem.

Think about it. What are the alternatives? Loose Aggressive, Loose Passive, Tight Weak??? I think some of the posters are suggesting a loose aggressive approach, but does anyone really think that over the long run the average winning player would a) be able to withstand the swings associated with that style of play, and b)still be a winner over the long run??
Just my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it. What are the alternatives? Loose Aggressive, Loose Passive, Tight Weak??? I think some of the posters are suggesting a loose aggressive approach, but does anyone really think that over the long run the average winning player would a) be able to withstand the swings associated with that style of play, and b)still be a winner over the long run??
Just my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

In a full ring game, the forces of time and tight play should yield a profit--considering a player's ability to voluntarily enter pots in which they perceive a statistcal advantage and, as a result, apply risk adverse and reward bolstering wagering strategies.

However, a tournament constrains the time variable. A fixed field of competitors must play for advantage amid an ultimately finite all-or-nothing scoring system; first place accumulates all the chips once possessed and evenly distributed among all the competition (rebuy tounrmants add slight variation to this principle.)

The differences between tournament play and ring are signifcant enough to suggest winning strategies may differ as well.

Is TAG even the norm in tourneys? I think the battles of tight-passives and LAGS seem to define the early stages of a tournament...perhaps even continuing as an overall paradigm until one person possesses every chip in the tournament's universe.

It would be interesting to see empirical evidence to explore this question further.

[chadplusplus]

This works in two situations:

1) Bad play by your opponents:

a)Donks are unwilling to fold their TPTK to your trip threes or rag two pair or whatever - this really helps your implied odds but is very dependent on knowing your opponent(s);

b)Just calling a raise in LP makes people leary of PP and when they miss the flop and you fire over their continuation bet or check, it confirms their suspicion that you are holding PP and they will fold allowing you to steal the pot. Necessary skills: Selective Aggression or Sensing Weakness

2) The second reason is much more complicated and I'm not sure how correct I am in my reasoning. Imagine a table where everyone is playing textbook TAG style. Your short term winrate will be very dependent upon the cards you get. You luck into getting aces vs. someone's kings, AK vs. AQ, stuff like that. But over the long run, you'll be on the short end of that stick just as frequently as you're on the winning end. All in all, you'll be break even with these other guys because you're all playing the same style (also assuming mistakes are relatively even). However, if you now throw in the occasional 27o or 58s or whatever, this drastically changes the dynamics of the game. If everyone else is still only playing tight textbook poker, but you've loosened up, you've given yourself an occasional opportunity to win an extra pot - and these few extra pots do add up as long as we are disciplined enough to fold when we know we are beaten. Herein lies the skill of the uber-pro. They, with their seeming telepathic abilities, can play middle pair on a K 4 6 rainbow board and know whether you are holding that king. I can't do this yet, but I sure wish I could.

As applied to tournaments, this strategy will only work well during the early stages when everyone is playing deep stack poker - the deep stacks provide enough of a buffer that if you do manage to hit your rag two pair and your opponent connected with his hand (TPTK), you can expect to exract a lot of chips compared to your initial investment.

Also, let us not forget that when opponents see us playing bad cards hard, they are more willing to pay us off later when we actually have a monster.

Edit: But apparently, the key to most people's success, regardless of preflop style, is aggression.

I know you mentioned "Full Ring" in your answer, but don't you think a TAG approach would also yield considerable profit in 6-max as well. Maybe even more than full ring, because most players at 6-max are so loose that a TAG approach is even more effective. Of course this takes into consideration that tag for 6-max is slightly looser than tag in a full ring game.
Looking forward to your response.

[ QUOTE ]
It would be interesting to see empirical evidence to explore this question further.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that's the one thing missing in poker research. i'd love to see a study of 1000 low entry fee tournaments and see how things evolve.... i know some of it has been done and linked to risk-aversion etc... i basically have never seen a huge study that was user-friendly... i know the experienced authors know this stuff inside and out, but i want to see an actual study.

[ QUOTE ]
i'd love to see a study of 1000 low entry fee tournaments and see how things evolve.... i know some of it has been done and linked to risk-aversion etc... i basically have never seen a huge study that was user-friendly... i know the experienced authors know this stuff inside and out, but i want to see an actual study.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obvioulsy, all the online poke sites hold this data. Doubtful they would ever release it to the general public--even if the player names were changed to protect those involved.

I don't know how much relevant hand information can be gathered through one player using tracking software at a multi-table tourney. Maybe if a group of such players agreed to share inofrmation with one another a more comprehensive statistical narrative would emerge.

[Lash]

”Is this the way to play optimum tournament and middle limit poker for 2005?”

Who cares! But I will say this…

It sounds like Daniel is coming across as some sort of banner for a new generation of poker players….

I think that’s a good thing. It’s great for him and great for the game. It’s great for the players to have spokespersons, role-models, and Icons….plural.

I’m a low-mid Limit relatively conventional tight player who plays in a mundane un-flashy grinding manner. I am licking my chops at having Daniel, or any other high profile player wave this banner of unconventional play at the current ocean of newcomers. Many of those newcomers are thinking “72 in this spot? I forget why, but it’s no fun to just sit here anyway”. Who cares?! I can play 72 better than those guys for all the right reasons.

On the other hand I do agree that to beat the best (most crafty &amp; skilled) you have to instinctively employ skills that are integral to an “open” game. Clearly only a minute portion of today’s population of poker players can effectively employ these “unconventional” skills…. So once again I’m sitting here thinking: “who cares?! I don’t have ESP down quite yet anyway.”

If I was playing with the pro’s and in the biggest games on a daily basis (including big-buy in tournament poker) I probably would be sitting there thinking: “who cares?! Once they pick his brain and communicate his strategy in a meaningful way…I’ll just learn better how to counter it.”

[Don Olney]

This style of play is following very close to Mike Carros advice.
This realy is nothing new but is becomming a more visible style of play.

[quoteI’m a low-mid Limit relatively conventional tight player who plays in a mundane un-flashy grinding manner. I am licking my chops at having Daniel, or any other high profile player wave this banner of unconventional play at the current ocean of newcomers. Many of those newcomers are thinking “72 in this spot? I forget why, but it’s no fun to just sit here anyway”. Who cares?! I can play 72 better than those guys for all the right reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree totally about the new players (and usually young males) watching daniel and thinking "you can play any card" but just be aggressive.

but 3 things:

daniel is playing top players who respect what a raise means (this point is a little muddled, but the other players respect daniel)

a guy like daniel has absolutely exceptional reads. i get the idea most of these young guys have barely read a book let alone thought about poker that much. i think many of them have just seen crazy plays on TV work.

most importantly, these pro's work position so hard it's unbelievable. i suppose these young kids could work position really hard, but if they are seeing 60% of flops and work position hard everytime they have it, then there's really nothing to fear.... yes, you will occasionally walk into AA, AK, KK from a terrible player, but that's just poker. (funny i've waited an hour and a half to get a good shot at an awful loose-passive player, and then they had AA, not a good feeling)