PDA

View Full Version : weak tight


07-30-2002, 04:27 PM
I think I'm weak tight. Although a moderate winner at hold'em, I know I fold to easily and am sure I get pushed off pots by other players. Anyone got a cure?

07-30-2002, 05:14 PM
Read the essay by Ray Zee that's posted on this forum about the stages of a players career. I don't know what limits you play. If you're playing middle to high, then weak tight is a problem for you. I play $3-$6 mostly and have resigned myself to the fact that weak tight brings home the money there. Zee's essay suggests that you keep playing tight and experiment a bit. For the most part I'll play my usual weak-tight game. I know how you feel. The weak-tight label is bothersome to me as well. I play a ton of TTHE and let my wild and crazy side go there. It almost always costs me money, but at least its just play dough. I wind up outplaying myself against the computer, then reverting to my super tight B&M game. Besides, tricky play goes unnoticed (for the most part)in small limit games. A hand I posted a while ago will stick in my mind for quite some time. I had KK in the SB and just called a pre-flop raise. 7 players took the flop for 2 bets each. It came King high. I check-raised and didn't lose a single person. The guy to my left made a comment about the CR and then called anyway. I bet the turn and a mid position player raised me. WTF? I paused and looked at the board. Could I have missed something? No. I re-raise to $18. The raiser now takes a long pause of his own and starts asking the guy next to him what I might have. Anyway, he calls me down and I drag a very nice pot. I wonder about my tight and predictable play because if I was playing against my clone, I'd never enter a pot in which it was raising. I'm always somewhat stunned when I get called down, show my top pair and watch as they toss their cards into the muck. What the hell did they think I had? Bottom pair?


If you're fairly new to the game, then weak-tight is the natural progression to winning play. Of course that assumes that you won't be the same player when you make your jump to bigger games. I'm not sure when I'll be ready, but I'm not rushing things.

07-30-2002, 05:30 PM
Enroll in some assertiveness training classes. /images/smile.gif /images/wink.gif

07-30-2002, 05:53 PM
Lol thanks - actually the first reply is probably right - I probably play as I do because bluffing and tricky play just doesn't work in the games I play in.

07-30-2002, 07:35 PM
Post some hands and lets take it from there.


Too general of a statement for anyone to help you with your "problem"


MK

07-30-2002, 08:55 PM
As ripdog pointed out, weak-tight is a natural stage in developement. Tight being the key. Aggresion is the element that puts the tough decisions to others. Without getting carried away, try these plays more often:

-semi-bluff your draws more frequently

-Make check-raising a standard play from EP


Once you are comftorable that you have gained some control of the hands you are in, you will then be better able to Study other players betting habbits, and make decisions based on your reads and intuition. (I would caution you, however, not to confuse intuition with wishful thinking or fear of the worst.)

Playing later streets is the toughest part of any game, and something all players are constantly working on. Good luck, and I hope you find this useful.

07-31-2002, 12:13 AM
IMO, there is a very slim difference between weak tight and solid tight maybe just a difference in semantics. If that's what it takes for you to keep on winning, you better stick to it.

07-31-2002, 07:15 AM
Since I accidentally posted under the name "running scared" on another forum, I guess there's no point trying to pretend that I wasn't the person who posted the original message.


As far as specific examples. I guess the best example of my problem is when it's folded to me on the button or in the small blind and I make a raise against the blinds. For example it was folded to me in the small blind recently and I raised the big blind with pocket 7's. The board came with two overcards (a queen and a Jack). I bet and was called. Blank on the turn. I checked, was bet into and folded. My opponent said he had ace high. This is not the first time this situation has arisen.


I am certainly more comfortable in a full game than short handed where I automatically seem to give opponents credit for the hands which they are representing.

07-31-2002, 02:18 PM
Mason's "Poker Essays" (page 108) summarized the characteristics of weak-tight players and pointed out that "this type of play is the first step toward winning."


I built on his summary in the chapter "If you are a tight-passive player," pages 221-244 of "The Psychology of Poker." It lists 13 specific changes you should make and tell you why you play that way.


Understanding why is essential. If you don't understand the forces that cause you to act this way, it is unlikely you will make many of the changes.


One change is extremely easy to make AVOID SHORT HANDED GAMES. You will get run over.


Al Schoonmaker


Jessica wrote: "I am certainly more comfortable in a full game than short handed where I automatically seem to give opponents credit for the hands which they are representing."

07-31-2002, 07:30 PM
I went through that chapter Again, and I have to say as I reread it, it's probably the best advice in print.

07-31-2002, 07:36 PM
Read Alan's book. I'm too lazy to post some of the points he makes, but if you don't already own the book, let me know and I'll type out some examples. BTW, most players hate shorthanded games, so don't think your alone. However, once you get comtorable being a bit more aggressive and trusting your reads, I think you'll find shorthanded play to be a very profitable situation. Next time, try check-raising the turn or flop before you fold. I think you'll be suprised how often you pick up a shorthanded pot.

08-01-2002, 07:03 AM
Thankyou - I will read this chapter tonight!

08-02-2002, 01:25 AM
Thanks Noo Yawk,


I appreciate the endorsement and hope you won't be offended by this post. You wrote: "Once you get comfortable being a bit more aggressive and trusting your reads, I think you'll find shorthanded play to be a very profitable situation."

I agree that short-handed play can be very profitable, but this thread was started by someone who wrote: "I'm not very tough." He described himself as "weakish-tight." The critical fact is that he can NOT become comfortable about being aggressive because many genetic and historical factors made him what he is today. In fact, he was lamenting his lack of toughness.

One of the most persistent fallacies of poker writers and players is that proving that some type of play is profitable will cause people to make basic changes in the way they think, feel, and act. I wish it were that easy, but it's not.

He plays "weakish-tight" BECAUSE he is not comfortable being aggressive and he does not trust his reads. It is extremely unlikely that he will make huge changes in his feelings about himself. Therefore, until he is confident that he has changed, he should avoid short handed games.


Thanks again for the kind words, and I certainly hope I have not "bitten the hand that fed me."


Regards,


Al

08-03-2002, 09:00 AM
I'm not at all offended by constructive critisism.

Particularly when my advice may adversly affect a fellow 2+2'ers play. After all, isn't this board about getting the best advice? Thanks again for your response.

08-03-2002, 01:31 PM
Noo Yawk's positive reaction to constructive criticism is rather rare among poker players. Far too many people don't want to hear any criticism. That's one reason they tell so many bad beat stories. They want to believe their bad results are caused by bad luck.


If you should suggest that they might have played the hand differenty, the usual reaction is "You don't understand. Against these idiots, nothing works."


I'm making a big deal of this point because it is critically important. I mentioned it yesterday in another thread. You can't learn much if you don't INVITE criticism and listen to it with an open mind.

08-04-2002, 04:00 PM
Alan, you wrote: "You can't learn much if you don't INVITE criticism and listen to it with an open mind." Soooo true, my friend, so true. It is painful to "confess" to playing bad and to have your mentors confirm this. Of course, when YOU offer "criticism", it is done with a dose of caring and concern. Your suggestions are nonthreatening because they are viewed as coming from a friend, not from a disciplinarian. This is quite different from the approach of others, who find a kind of sadistic joy in hearing about their competitor's woes and who actually delight in making harsh and judgmental remarks about their play. One of the reasons you made the Babe's Best Boys list this year was "for being so kind". And "kind" is a good word to describe the type of "criticism" you provide. Your favorite PokerBabe /images/wink.gif.

08-04-2002, 08:57 PM
Babe,


How could ANYBODY be mean to you?


Love,


Al

08-05-2002, 08:11 PM
I think that poker players are much more defensive when it comes to criticism than others who participate in competitive games. This makes a lot of sense to me because many of us compete directly against each other and sometimes try to get an extra edge by playing head games with our opponents. Since the person receiving the criticism may suspect that he's being played with, he may be a little resistant to the criticism.


Lately, I have been playing poker with a few of my buddies without using money because we vaule each others' criticism more than a few bucks. When we used to play for money, we all had trouble giving a taking criticism, at least during a game.


You also have to consider the fact that many poker players are in denial about their own skills. Since they may believe that they're already moderately good, they wouldn't want to take advice that's geared towards relatively new players.


Does anyone else think that these could be a few of the reasons for poker players' resistance to criticism? Can anyone else think of additional reasons?

08-06-2002, 02:52 PM
I agree with your main points, especially the one about denial. However, I think we must distinguish between attacking criticism, including head games, and the sorts of comments we usually see here. In general, we do not play against each other, and there is no direct payoff for playing head games. We're here to learn.

Yet we have all seen extreme defensiveness. In addition, coaching is far less common among poker players than it is among serious players of almost any other game. I know dozens of peopple who have paid for tennis, golf, and bridge lessons, but hardly anyone who has paid for poker lessons.

In addition, post mortems are a standard feature of most serious bridge games, but serious strategic discussions are rare among poker players. In fact, the most common discussion is bad beat stories, which are really a form of denial. When we tell a bad beat story, we're really saying, "I'm a good player, but get lousy results because I'm unlucky."

And I've had people get very angry with me when they tell me a bad beat story, and I've suggested that they played the hand poorly. I don't do it any more unless I'm reasonably sure that the person wants honest criticism, rather than sympathy. Which brings me back to the critical issue of open-mindedness and receptivity to crticism. It's a two way street. People have to be receptive to criticism, but they won't be receptive if the atmosphere is wrong.

One of the most important reasons serious players come here rather than RGP is that the atomsphereis more helpful. The highly personal attacks that occur over there make it difficult or impossible for people to ask for and accept criticism.