\"Action\" vs. \"Weak-Tight,\" explain please?
 

Hi All,

General question, no specific hand in mind. How do you distinguish between a good "action" player and a "weak-tight" player? I've read comments here that "weak-tight" means loose pre-flop and tight post-flop, but ... well....

I know many strong players who are loose-passive pre-flop and tight-aggressive post-flop. They play for implied odds, see a lot of cheap flops, play aggressively if they hit, and get away cheap if they miss. They're dangerous to play, because it's difficult to put them on a hand, and a misread can get very expensive.

On the other hand, I see a lot of players who are loose-aggressive pre-flop and tight-passive post-flop. They get stung by effective odds, getting into a lot of raised pots -- either raising themselves or calling a raise -- then mucking or at most calling from the flop on. Is this what people mean by "weak-tight?"

Cris

Re: \"Action\" vs. \"Weak-Tight,\" explain please?
 

Try reading some poker books and don't waste our time with basic questions.

Re: \"Action\" vs. \"Weak-Tight,\" explain please?
 

Look at how many posts Cris has.

Read through some of her posts--she offers some of the most consistently-good advice on the forum.

I'd be quite happy if you never posted again.

-Ben

Re: \"Action\" vs. \"Weak-Tight,\" explain please?
 

Cris-

I've always called the first group of players LAGs (loose-aggressives). Loose preflop and then aggressive later. I find the majority of the low-limits players I'm against fall in this category--they're easy money if you have good hand selection.

Weak-tight to me simply means 'easily pushed off a hand.'

-Ben

Re: \"Action\" vs. \"Weak-Tight,\" explain please?
 

[ QUOTE ]
she offers some of the most consistently-good advice on the forum.


[/ QUOTE ]

Without intending to insult anybody, you obviously don't read the posts by Fossilman, Zag, Crockpot, Ray Zee, Matt Flynn, Limon, etc.
Cris is obviously passionate about poker and writing, but (and I'm not referring to Cris here ), the number of posts doesn't reflect quality, it indicates enthusiasm.
But you're right - there was no need for such a cutting reply.

Re: \"Action\" vs. \"Weak-Tight,\" explain please?
 

Hi All,

I'd just ignore Beav's replies if I were you. It's obvious he thinks women have no business playing or discussing poker, as evidenced by his screen name and this comment in the Psych forum in the thread "m/f players":

[ QUOTE ]
True observation about recreation players:

Most craps players are men
Most slot players are women
Slots has a much higher (over 10x) player disadvantage.

What inferences can you draw from this premise?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certainly not going to debate this or any other issue with him. As my mother taught me: never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Cris

Re: \"Action\" vs. \"Weak-Tight,\" explain please?
 

"Some," not "all."

Fair point about post-count though.

Re: \"Action\" vs. \"Weak-Tight,\" explain please?
 

Well said Cris.

Re: \"Action\" vs. \"Weak-Tight,\" explain please?
 

when I think of weak-tight players, I am in general thinking of players that will only bet strong hands, and generally fold to significant aggression. although I think some weak tight players can be too loose preflop, generally I think of weak tight players, I am thinking of players that are tight on all streets. players that play in very tough, very aggressive games sometimes look weak tight, because a calling/trapping strategy can be very effective against an overaggressive opponent.

when I think of action players, I think of players who will call raises with anything preflop, and play fairly aggressively postflop. generally, the best players in my game are action players with good reading skills and deep stacks.

weak tight players are generally very easy to read and play against, until they learn to mix up their play. I get a lot of respect (folds to my bets/raises) in my game, so about 3 times an hour I checkraise the flop no matter what I have and generally take it down. until someone from my game figures out that I am doing this, it's a great strategy. since I generally play with a short stack, I play tighter than most players and I'm sure some people think of me as weak tight. In my opinion it's a fine image to have as long as I am using that image to steal small pots.

--turnipmonster

Re: \"Action\" vs. \"Weak-Tight,\" explain please?
 

[ QUOTE ]
when I think of weak-tight players, I am in general thinking of players that will only bet strong hands, and generally fold to significant aggression. although I think some weak tight players can be too loose preflop, generally I think of weak tight players, I am thinking of players that are tight on all streets. players that play in very tough, very aggressive games sometimes look weak tight, because a calling/trapping strategy can be very effective against an overaggressive opponent.

when I think of action players, I think of players who will call raises with anything preflop, and play fairly aggressively postflop. generally, the best players in my game are action players with good reading skills and deep stacks.

weak tight players are generally very easy to read and play against, until they learn to mix up their play. I get a lot of respect (folds to my bets/raises) in my game, so about 3 times an hour I checkraise the flop no matter what I have and generally take it down. until someone from my game figures out that I am doing this, it's a great strategy. since I generally play with a short stack, I play tighter than most players and I'm sure some people think of me as weak tight. In my opinion it's a fine image to have as long as I am using that image to steal small pots.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an awesome point. I think this is worth rereading. If you have this image, use it effectively.