Learning how to play like a maniac, occasionally

[Wynton]

I'm pretty comfortable with one style of play right now, which is very tight, pretty aggressive. But in the interest of flexibility, I would like to learn how to play like a wild maniac, at least occasionally.

Is the idea of trying to incorporate a very different style, perhaps unnatural style, a bad idea? If not, is there a logical way to start experimenting with a wilder style, aside from just trying it out on low limit tables?

[Duke]

You never play like a maniac; that's the thing. You just look like you are because you're playing a certain hand at a certain time against certain opponents that demand that play.

~D

[Wynton]

Maybe I should have started by posing these questions:

1. Can someone win, in the long-term, by playing ultra aggressive, and fairly loose? In other words, not by playing mindlessly, but systematically, yet unusually aggressive.

2. If someone can win this way, are they likely to win more in the long-term than playing more conventionally, i.e., tight/aggressive?

3. If this is a viable long-term approach, does it make sense to try it out, even if one's natural style, or history, is to play tight/aggressive?

[cjx]

I'll not pretend to be an expert, but from my reading and study the general answer is, no.

Someone posted charts awhile back of Loose Aggressive play vs Tight Aggressive vs Loose Passive vs Tight Passive. The charts showed what everyone else always agreed on, Tight is more profitable than Loose and Aggressive is more profitable than Passive. Tight Aggressive is the most profitable.

So to answer your questions:
1. Depends. If the table is extremely tight you may be able to bully, but you're risking more (preflop raise vs blinds) to win less and when tighty does find a hand you'll be at a disadvantage. If the table has a good player he may begin to use isolation raises and then it's a matter of whether or not you can outplay him. If it's a loose table then, no, play premium hands as you're not going to knock people out with your aggressive play, but you will risk more.

2. Yes.

3. It might be considered worthwhile in specific situations. If a table gets overly tight (blinds often playing headsup, preflop raises winning blinds, raised pot featuring two players not the blinds), but more importantly you need to be able to play well headsup which requires you to be more aggressive because your hands (high cards, middle pair, etc) will more often be the best hand.

cjx

[juanez]

If your natural style is TAG and you are winning, stay on course! Why change your winning style to one that is probably a losing one in the long run? It can be frustrating to see some maniac win big during a session, but I believe that MOST maniacs will lose in the long run.

Changing your style now and then for a hand or two is a good way to "advertise" for more action on later hands or if a specific situation warrants it, but to always play super-LAG will be self defeating in the long run IMHO. TOP and HEPFAP would be a very different books if Sklansky & Malmuth thought super-LAG was a profitable strategy in the long run.

Let me know when you are going to switch to super-LAG so I can get on the same table as you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Wynton]

Sorry Juanez, I think you've convinced me to stay the course

Maybe I was just experiencing momentary envy of the maniacs who seem to prosper with their style an inordinate amount of the time.

Anyway, I'll keep up with good ole, methodical TAG play.

[charlie_t_jr]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone win, in the long-term, by playing ultra aggressive, and fairly loose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only one way to win in the long term, and thats to make the best descision, as often as possible, in many varying situations...sometimes you play strong, sometimes you play weak(so to speake).

How do you know what the best play for a certain situation?...read, study, experience.