A random hypothesis. Thoughts?

[galahad_187]

In the higher buy in tournaments (33+ buy in lets say) is it better to be more aggressive in the start since everyone is being ass tight? i mean it selectively, but it seems people so easily give up their blinds earily on then get aggressive later. Then when people get aggressive you pick your spots super carefully when you think your ahead against the range of hands your opponents would play. Or maybe just stay aggressive, and make your money in the start then try to hold onto that headstart through bubble/ 3handed play.

think this holds any merit? why/why not?

[lastchance]

You definitely need more aggressive and better L1-L3 play at higher levels (which is really not 2+2 style limp jacks pf and fold AQ, etc). Bubble push/fold is the same, except you're not running into stupid calls so you can actually push more there.

[citanul]

in poker, you make your money by playing better than your opponents than they would in the same situation.

say your opponents don't do "obviously" stupid things like, folding AA to one all in early, or calling all in early in a tournament with 72o. they all play "their cards" properly, hypothetically for now.

the game then becomes a question of adjustments. you make money by adjusting to your opponents better than they adjust to you, and each other. one of the ways that this happens is that you should exploit your weak tight opponents in certain spots by being more loose and aggressive. you should similarly exploit your loose aggressive opponents selectively by being weak tight.

this is not to say that those are the only adjustments that can be made, or to say that those are the only ways to adjust to those particular opponents, but just saying that yes, adjusting to your opponents is profitable.

citanul

[tshort]

People are tight in 33s? Are you playing at Party Poker?