Sklansky vs. forum opinion on LAGs

[el_grande]

I was watching a Sklansky videotape last night and noticed what appears to be a discrepancy between how he would play against a LAG in a low limit game and the prevailing opinion on this board.

I've noticed from hand analysis threads that the regulars here like to isolate and punish LAGs with raises when you have excellent preflop cards or flop a good hand. On Sklansky's videotape he mentions that it is often not correct to play agressively against LAGs. You should actually play a style that would be incorrect under normal circumstances. You should become passive and do a lot of check-calling. I suppose the theory here is to absorb the money that the LAG is throwing away rather than slowing him down by raising. He will believe you are weak, and will continue betting and raising on subsequent hands and you can do it to him again. Let him stay in control even when you believe you have the best hand. To quote Sklansky: "play like a wimp!".

What are your thoughts on this?

[Homer]

Often that's what you want to do, but that's usually after you isolate the LAG.

-- Homer

[Nate tha' Great]

I don't know that Sklansky is being inconsistent.

Raising before the flop serves the purpose of getting other players out of the hand.

Once you've accomplished that, it is often correct to play passively and let the LAG make your bets for you. Playing passively in a multi-way pot is considerably more problematic.

[Styles]

Feeney has alot of advice on this in "the Poker Mind" that is a must read IMHO.

He discusses isolating preflop, trapping and isolating on later streets, and the check/call approach and when to use each tactic based on game factors (your position, the other players at the table, type of game, etc.)

I think you see people make assumptions on these factors based strictly on the game description as a "low limit game" and this is the discrepency you see.

[el_grande]

I still think there is an inconsistency here. I understand that everyone agrees about isolating a LAG preflop.

But I have seen many hands posted vs. a LAG where most of the responses condone (or recommend) raises, 3-bets, or caps POST FLOP because it is assumed the LAG is overplaying a hand.

[pudley4]

First of all, there are different types of LAGs. You play differently against these different types:

Type 1 - VERY aggressive/Maniacs. These player will bet/raise/reraise with very marginal (or worse) hands. They will not slow down when raised. Play aggressively back at them and you can take them for a lot of money in a short amount of time.

Type 2 - Bluffers. These players will be very aggressive if you show weakness (especially if they have position). However, if you show strength, they are much more likely to give up and fold. Against these players you need to play more passively (check-call when out of position, or flat-call if you have position)

A reason for playing passively against a super-LAG is to allow him to lose his money more slowly. Instead of dropping 8 BB on one hand, he may drop 9 BB spread over 3 hands. This not only keeps him in the game longer, but it's less likely to make him either tighten up (play better) or quit and go home (his most +EV play).

[bernie]

you're discussing 2 different things. sklansky's deal i gather is once you have it HU with an LAG. then you let him bluff off his money. you dont do this in a multi-way pot with them.

you're looking at preflop and postflop here.

b

[Stu Pidasso]

Suppose you isolate a LAG preflop with a hand like AK and the flop misses you completely. If the LAG bet, I would go into a call down shell and let the LAG bet my hand(which, heads up, is often good with out any improvement)

If the flop brings me TPTK, I'm going to try to get some raises in.

Stu

[Styles]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think there is an inconsistency here. I understand that everyone agrees about isolating a LAG preflop.

But I have seen many hands posted vs. a LAG where most of the responses condone (or recommend) raises, 3-bets, or caps POST FLOP because it is assumed the LAG is overplaying a hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I don't see why you can't take it as "There is no one way to play every LAG?" It depends on alot of factors.

Take for example, Pudley's explanation and comments about S- trying to keep him in the game by playing weakly.

In a Live game this is more of a factor than online where most 2+2er's hand histories seem to come from. S- seems to play more Live so maybe his comments were leaning more towards that situation.

Online and particularly at low limit online, people don't stay as long or show up as regularly as they do in a live card barn, so these sorts of plays don't have the supporting set of assumptions. Thus, most people hit him hard now, and not set him up to take him down in the next 40 hands a little at a time. I personally, have had that happen several times where I made a small gain check-calling and then someone criticized the LAG and he left the table shortly thereafter before I could get in another hand with him. In hindsight, I would have much rather got in a reraising war with him, if I knew he was going to leave soon, never to return.

I had a situation yesterday where I made a similar mistake. I saw a LAG I like playing against that has been around for 2-3 days. I got on the waiting list for his table and when I joined I was in MP. Rather than late-post here I sat out and waited for the blinds. I got one hand in after the blinds before he left and never got a hand in against him. While normally the posters here would never late post in MP (there was a thread asking if this was a Fish-tell even) I think it was stupid of me to try to save $1 post, IF I knew he was soon to leave, as I saw a couple 10BB pots pass by me while I was sitting-out.