Re: Is Tight Aggressive really the best?
 

You have to take into account the players you are up against as well. Sometimes if the game is really laggy you have to tighten up (IMO) and if the game is really passive, you can loosen up a little a raise a few more hands (IMO).

Re: Is Tight Aggressive really the best?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously if someone has hit a good run of cards they will appear to be looser and will have a higher winrate as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the key factor. Even with your attempts to filter our players with a low # of hands, you are going to get a huge selection bias.

Re: Is Tight Aggressive really the best?
 

I find very good LAG's are the hardest to play against because they'll have control over the table far more often than a TAG will simply because they're invloved much more. As tough as he may be, you don't hear from the TAG that much. The LAG is frequently in your face.

That being said, it's much tougher to be a very good LAG. Your variance will be much higher and you'll be required to play well much more often.

Re: Is Tight Aggressive really the best?
 

It totally depends on the table. For example, there's little question that the bigger the difference in postflop skill level between you and your opponents, the more hands you should play (assuming the difference runs in your favor, obviously).

Since the players tend to be better at higher limits, your advantage is reduced, meaning that you need to tighten up. So my guess is that if we ran the same searches at higher and higher limits there'd be fewer and fewer successful LAGs(although the few that are successful might well be more successful than the TAGs).

Re: Is Tight Aggressive really the best?
 

Another thing to consider as far as selection bias goes is why the sample of LAGS is so much smaller for both your database and Niedams. An obvious answer is that TAG is the book style and most people play by the book.
Another potential answer is thet LAGS tend to go broke fast unless they are really good and you don't have a large sample because the bad ones bust and quit playing. If this is true, your winrate for LAGs is biased upwards because you are not observing the negative winrates for the players who quit because they bust.

Re: Is Tight Aggressive really the best?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find very good LAG's are the hardest to play against because they'll have control over the table far more often than a TAG will simply because they're invloved much more. As tough as he may be, you don't hear from the TAG that much. The LAG is frequently in your face.

That being said, it's much tougher to be a very good LAG. Your variance will be much higher and you'll be required to play well much more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only is this the correct answer, it's fantastic. NH

-ZEN

Re: Is Tight Aggressive really the best?
 

[ QUOTE ]
nope, LAG is by far the best

[/ QUOTE ]

Will no one stand up for the loose-passive? Or the weak-tight?

Think of the children.