Re: Is it so bad to be passive (a rock)?
If you practice good starting hand selection and do a decent job of folding when you're beaten postflop, you can make a profit playing small stakes online poker simply because so many other players practice neither of these skills. In that, you are correct that it's not so bad to play like a rock.
The reason that you (eventually) want to be an aggressive player is that a more aggressive style will win you more money. By raising instead of calling, both preflop and postflop, you drive out your opponents more often. The fewer players that are contesting a pot against you, the more likely it is that you will win (obvious simplification, as the cards matter, but you get what I mean). And by raising in spots where you are likely (but not certain) to have the best hand, you win more money in the pots you do win.
It's a plain and simple fact: by playing tight poker preflop, you are limiting yourself to only about 20% of your hands. Of those, you will "naturally" win about 33% of the time (when I say "naturally", I mean end up with the best hand; this does not include times when your opponents fold better hands due to mistakes and misreads). In other words, you will win about 7% of the total hands you're dealt. If you're only winning a few bets each time, that will not do a good job of cancelling out the times when you see the flop and later streets but don't win, let alone your blinds. By being aggressive & winning as many bets as possible the few times you win a showdown, you increase your profits substantially.
Like the other poster said above, don't try to force it all at once; it takes time & experience to work a more aggressive style into your game. But do start trying it piece by piece; reading Small Stakes Hold'Em by Malmuth, Miller, and Sklansky will help.
Oh, and if you ask Hellmuth, he'll tell you that he's an Eagle, not a rock. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|