[CaptLego]

[ QUOTE ]
He's tried explaining to me that implied odds just don't work the same way in NL/PL like they do in limit, which is partly self-evident. For instance, he'll make bottom pair and call the passive players to the river to try to make trips or two pair, then ram and jam if he makes his hand. Me, I fold bottom pair pretty routinely and don't try to suck out. Now, is this strategy profitable in NL/PL? It would only seem profitable if you expect someone to call your big raise when you make your hand, which you won't do very often. The most sense I can make of this is that with a psychological edge and the expectation that bad players will pay you off if you make your long shot, loosening up could be the way to go.


[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree with your friend. If the game is as you describe (loose passive) like games I've experienced, the winning formula is pretty simple:

Draw (as cheaply as possible) for good hands, and overbet the hell out of them when you hit. The passive nature makes limping and drawing relatively cheap, and getting called when you do hit more than makes up for all the times you don't hit. Basically, the implied odds are enormous.

Never bluff, until the table routinely folds to your big raises. Then steal every pot until they start calling again.

If you get a maniac at the table, you'll have to abandon this strategy quickly, or you'll go broke. The maniac (or any agressive player) will punish you for drawing. But if the table is passive -- the draws will pay off.