Tight Passive the Way to Go?????

[DaveduFresne]

As I posted awhile back I have recently made the "jump" to 200 NL 10 max. Yes I know this is still low stakes, but I like the advice better in this forum, if that is alright with everyone.

Anyway, as I have been playing (and struggling somewhat) I have been observing the players who seem to make the most money at this limit. They seem to be tight passive. Well, maybe not completely passive, they play aggressively with their rockcrushers such as sets, straights, boats etc. A few also play Aces and Kings very aggressively as well. The more successful seem to not even do this, waiting for sets or better to back their stack with.

Overall, I am finding this limit very tight (this is on prima), and in general it seems to be wise to wait for sets or better before committing your stake. Most players seem to not go all in with you unless they can beat your Aces or Kings, although they may checkraise you if they think youre out of line.

Of course there are a few idiots here like anywhere, but it seems to me the idea that the passive players have is that about 80% of the time you need a set or better against a big raise or checkraise. Yes someone may be overplaying top pair or a draw, but it doesn't happen frequently enough to make committing your stack to overpairs or two pairs worth it.

I watch Live at the Bike a lot, and the announcers are constantly criticizing passive play, yet the successful 1/2 players are check calling with TPTK?!!

The main thing I should probably add is that although I never pay these guys off after they call me once (unless I am the one with the rockcrusher) most players do.

To give you an example of what I mean, here is a rundown of a hand I saw tonight.

Tight regular has not seen the flop in four orbits. His flop seen percentage I would estimate to be ten percent. MP raise to eight, CO reraise to 24, Tight Regular (button) goes all in for 300 (CO has him covered) Cutoff thinks for a bit and calls. Of course Tight Regular has Aces, and Cutoff loses his stack with Kings.

I've been watching this same player for weeks, he never goes all in with the Kings, he always has the Aces. And yet people continually call his all ins preflop when he has Aces or on the flop when he has sets. They do this, when this guy literally plays about a hand an hour.

The people calling him usually have good hands, overpairs, two pairs etc. So they aren't complete donks, they just aren't smart enough to see that against this guy they need the nuts.

I have even seen the same players make calls repeatedly against him for all their stack and lose. I think their line of thinking is "well I have top two, I can't possibly fold".

Its frustrating to me, because I like to mix up my game and take chances. But it seems to me that against non regulars you get paid off whether you mix your game up or not. I don't really see what these guys are doing as real poker, but on the other hand, they seem to be making more money than me, so am I a fool not to become tight passive as well???

Comments?

Thanks,

David

[DaveduFresne]

Nice to see all the responses....isn't the passivity of the online game that I'm sure many of you have witnessed a much more engaging subject than whether its a good idea to dump pocket Aces preflop in a ring game???

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure many of you have witnessed a much more engaging subject than whether its a good idea to dump pocket Aces preflop in a ring game???

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, i was suprised to see that one get so many responses....But i did not read them all and i imagined they strayed off topic....

FWIW, i find you're post to be equally boring, out of place (in the wrong forum), and a bit time consuming to read.

[DaveduFresne]

Yes, like I really want a bunch of responses from people who are struggling at the party 25 NL tables.

Sorry about the length, but it is kind of pointless to ask a question without giving a good deal of context.

I fail to see how its a boring topic, every poker literature out there preaches aggression, aggression, make semi bluffs etc etc, but do you really see anyone play this way online with the exception of shorthanded high limit games?

David

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
I fail to see how its a boring topic, every poker literature out there preaches aggression, aggression, make semi bluffs etc etc, but do you really see anyone play this way online with the exception of shorthanded high limit games?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you can be successful playing tight somewhat passive in the smaller no limit games, which is why this post is in the wrong forum. In bigger games, this strategy will get crushed....

[ QUOTE ]
but do you really see anyone play this way online with the exception of shorthanded high limit games?


[/ QUOTE ]

yes, Although many successful higher limit players play differently they are all at least selectively aggressive.

[ QUOTE ]
like I really want a bunch of responses from people who are struggling at the party 25 NL tables.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just by reading the posts and weeding out the posts with faulty logic from those that have merit cause you to actively think about the game. By doing this, you are improving.

And there is nothing wrong with lower limit players reading and posting in the higher limit forum....Just don't post about lower limit concepts.

[DaveduFresne]

Ok, lets talk about a big limit topic then. How exactly will a tight player get "crushed" in a high limit online 10 max ring game?

The blinds aren't coming around very often, any game no matter how high that is remotely worth playing has at least one dead money player in it, with all the multitabling plus the come and go of online it is not easy to get good reads on all the players....I could go on but I really don't see how a passive strategy is going to get crushed in a high limit full ring game?

Unfortunately the highest full ring game I've seen online is 10/20, and based on my observations it didn't seem to play much different from the stakes I'm used to. Preflop play was even a bit tighter, but not greatly so. Otherwise, I didn't see a lot more "moves" or bluffs being carried out.

David

[freemoney]

play 6 max, much more fun

[NiceCatch]

[ QUOTE ]
play 6 max, much more fun

[/ QUOTE ]
And difficult. And rewarding. And the way to become a better poker player. And from what I've found, much more profitable per hour once you've gotten good at it.

[emil3000]

I think everyone disagrees with you.

Checkcalling with tptk is often the superior play, for example when you call a preflop raise from the blind with ak and flop an ace. I would often check/call the flop in that scenario.

The problem is if you just wait for the nuts you aren't maximizing your winnings. For players that just lose money when they get involved with weird hands obviously supersolid is superior. If you get paid off regardless of your previous action you can still win money by playing the nuts.

If you're a good player postflop you can play marginal situations profitably and this way you will also be tougher to read for your observant opponent. This is more profitable.

I think if you are winning less than the nutpeddlers it's because your postflop play needs improving.

[DaveduFresne]

Well, I was just asking what others thought. You seem to have pretty sound advice and I agree with what you're saying in theory.

I think my postflop play is pretty good. One thing that I have been remiss in mentioning is that after I drop a couple of buy ins, I tend to tilt. Nothing serious, and the average player would think I was doing just fine, but its off my optimal game.

If I could 100% contain my tilt I think I could earn more than the nutpeddlers. However, I am not sure this is possible. I once spoke to Prahlad Friedman whom many regard as the world's best online player, and he told me even he tilts.

Also, I think one thing you and a lot of other players are not realizing is that being inordinately tight has its advantages. Some of the tight players I have seen do bluff on occasion, and they are rarely called down. They get a lot of respect. Being too tight does have some advantages in table image.

Also, if someone plays back at them, they can fairly well assume the player has a very strong hand.

David