Player classfication terminology ?

I have 2 questions regarding player classifications:


1. I know/read that


Loose-passive = calling station

Loose-agressive = maniac

tight-passive = rock


which leaves tight-agressive (all 2+2 players). In "Psychology of Poker", tight-agressive is referred as a "stone killer". Other than this book I have never seen this term, is this standard terminology for a tight agressive player?


2. compared to above, what is meant by "weak-tight"?

Try "solid".


"Weak-tight" is a paranoid rock.

I hadn't given this any thought until now, but based on what I tend to write, my classifications go like this:


Good player = tight-aggressive


Soft player = passive


Lose player = someone who sees lots of flops, turns, and rivers.


Spunky player = someone who postures heavily and readily on the flop and turn


In general I see no problem with having multiple terms that duplicate meaning, and I don't think we need to standardize playing style descriptions.


I appreciate the simplicity of the common cube-divided-into-four-cubes containing the words tight, lose, aggressive, passive. It's a good way to THINK about the spectrum of styles, but, just as with the words deist, atheist, and agnostic, it's foolhardy to suppose that a few terms will properly describe an infinite spectrum of philosophies, or in our case, playing styles. Even more foolhardy with poker than theology, because individual playing styles change constantly and quickly.


In the context of discussing playing styles in general, the cube version is mighty handy. In the context of describing a particular hand, I think a more fluid approach is best.


Tommy

Tight-aggressive = tight in terms of deciding which hands to play, aggressive in terms of how to play them when you do decide to play.


Weak-tight = tight in terms of deciding which hands to play, and passive in terms of how to play them when you do decide to play.


Mason lists 4 characteristics of weak tight play:


1) tight play


2) predictable play


3) often folds marginal hands


4) bluffs very little.

Perhaps a way to classify players a bit more robustly would be to shift to a 3-dimensional paradigm consisting of Confrontation , Risk, and Strategic styles.


Confrontation = Passive or Agressive

Risk = Tight or Loose

Strategic = Predictable or Tricky


I'm sure you could expand this a bit further, but it does drill down a bit more on describing the overall characteristics of most players. I believe the "Strategic" dimension is one that we often overlook when pigeon-holing our opponents. It is often spoken about on its own, but seldom in concert with the other two styles.