Throw away 'the book'?

[BadgerAle]

Hello all,
This is a long and rambling post so be warned.
I would like your opinion on a change of style of playing that i have adopted of late.
On returning to play on party, in the 6 seater 100NL tables, i quickly fell into a pattern of calling almost every flop with any non-premium hand, and calling any largish raise with any small vaugely connected cards- 86o 95s. The result being i see almost any flop. I then play tightish very aggressive folding most times but when i hit the flop (more often than you would think) i make money off people glued to there over cards/over pair. I also feel confident enough to win big hands with bluffs when the cards are low and scary.

My rational is that these tables are so loose post flop that the pre-flop bet is very small compared to the size of the pots- the pre-flop raiser seems to have a standard pot size flop bet which sets the precedent for the turn and river.

I post here because in conversation with other players (who seem reasonably good players and claim semi-pro status)there was aggrement that my playing style, despite its apparent success, is doomed to long term failure. Whats more the assumption was that i am an amateur newbie who will quickly learn the standard way is best- I have been playing online for about 2 years sometimes as my main income, and while i don't claim to be a pro i'm definatly not an amateur.

Ok, my reasons against 'standard'/ solid play:

-It allows easy reads by experianced players (me)- often just the pre-flop bet can say AK JJ ect. -if i can know that i can't go wrong with 46suited.

-It has been passed on through books that assume a full seater table and is not relevent to the game in question- six handed.

-It also assumes standard mix of opponents as opposed to a full set of tilty LAGS found at the party 6seat 100NL table.

-Some of this percieved wisdom doesn't even apply to NL.

-What am i more likely to lose my stack with 47 off suit or AA AK QQ?

-It is the stratagy of the unimaginative, unperceptive and unintelligent who make up for lak of ability through the following of rules and standards.

-It may be profitable against the right opponents but its boring.

Thanks for reading. I would like your opinions on this as to wether its a sound stratagy, reasons against it ect. I haven't given any results/win-rate as I haven't been using the style long enough, I am more after theoretical objections.

Thanks
Ed

[xorbie]

Suited connectors are one thing, but random crap is another. This is all fine and well if you plan on simply outplaying (read: massive bluffing) big pots, but this is dependent on playing against players who will lay down. Otherwise you are just throwing money away on hands without nearly the right odds.

Also, there's a problem with playing for stacks whenever you hit hard with these hands - often someone else takes yours. Especially with hands that only make two pair or low flushes.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
Suited connectors are one thing, but random crap is another

[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest hole in this philosphy? is that bottom 2 pair is an extremely vulnerable hand. And bottom 2 is the kind of "HUGE HAND" you are gonna be flopping many times with random ass stuff.

[BadgerAle]

Low flushes i agree can occasionally hurt but no more than playing standard suited connectors, bottom two pair i don't have a probem laying down if i think i'm beat. Generally I think hitting straights, trips and two pair against overpair and TPTK much more than compansates. I'm basically arguing for all the reasons you would normally play suited connectors but the loose post flop means i can extend it to any old crap

[KowCiller]

How many hands do you have under your belt playing in this manner and what is your winrate?

KoW

[BadgerAle]

As I stated I don't have many hands which is why i asked for problems with my theory. For what its worth:

total hands 3578
big bets won per hundred hands 23.17

-I havent used poker tracker long so I'm not sure how good this is, also includes a period of running bad (bad beats- not related to the style).

[BigEndian]

A lot of styles work in NL. I wouldn't play the style you're talking about, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are players who can make it work for them (actually, we know there are a few - Gus Hansen is one of them).

The key to playing LAG (which is really what you're describing) is outplaying people past the flop. You don't sound experienced enough to have stellar post flop skills however. This tells me that you'll either a) very likely come down to earth or b) hit a long enough winning streak to sustain you until you do learn to play very well post flop.

Have you picked up Harringtons book? It focuses on tourneys, but a lot of the concepts apply to cash games as well.

- Jim

[jhall23]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "standard/solid" play.

Nobody on this forum is going to argue with you that you shouldn't be playing more hands in a 6 handed game, but playing any two and calling large raises in any position with mediocre hands can't be good long term. How often exactly are you seeing the flop. Is this truly "almost all" or do you mean like 40, 50% etc. There is definelty more than one winning style in this game.

[ QUOTE ]
-It allows easy reads by experianced players (me)- often just the pre-flop bet can say AK JJ ect. -if i can know that i can't go wrong with 46suited.

[/ QUOTE ]

If some is truly playing "solid" then if if they are TAG (say they see 20-25% PF and raise 7-10%) you shouldn't have that great of a hand range on them cause good "solid" players don't give away their hands by their raise amounts and mix up their play ocassionally. Also good "solid" players are not the type that would loose a 100 BB stack with just TPTK. Also you won't really know on the flop whether they hit their hand or not.

[ QUOTE ]
-It is the stratagy of the unimaginative, unperceptive and unintelligent who make up for lak of ability through the following of rules and standards.

-It may be profitable against the right opponents but its boring.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I would consider "solid", aka Tight-Agressive, play has plenty of room to be creative and is in no way boring. I sometimes play this way and sometimes am more laggy, there is a lot of room in these games to be a winning player.

If you are just referring to "nut-peddling" as solid play then you have some points, but most don't consider nut peddling solid. I think rocks are definetly leaving lots of money on the table in 6-max games and some can be losing players.

[BadgerAle]

I'm seeing just over 70% of flops

I'm not talking about playing TAGs but about how best to play LAG party monkeys- although i don't think it works badly against TAGs. I wasn't really slagging off TAG but just saying it is maybe not the most profitable way to play loose 6 seaters.


okay i'm no gus hansen but I am confident i can outplay the majority of players at this limit. whenever i talk about this people think i'm inexperianced which is why i want to get to the bottom of they're problem.

If it costs me 1-4 dollars to see a flop in a pot thats likely to end up 10 times that then its worth a look with most anything.

I know that TAG can be imaginative, I guess i feel that this way requires more concentration, guts and artfulness.

[jhall23]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm seeing just over 70% of flops

I'm not talking about playing TAGs but about how best to play LAG party monkeys- although i don't think it works badly against TAGs. I wasn't really slagging off TAG but just saying it is maybe not the most profitable way to play loose 6 seaters.


okay i'm no gus hansen but I am confident i can outplay the majority of players at this limit. whenever i talk about this people think i'm inexperianced which is why i want to get to the bottom of they're problem.

If it costs me 1-4 dollars to see a flop in a pot thats likely to end up 10 times that then its worth a look with most anything.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think 70% is pushing it a little bit. If you are in that many pots you must be calling raises with crap out of position. This can't be great in the long run. I think if you cut it down a bit to say 40-50 you would will have a better long term win rate.

[ QUOTE ]
I know that TAG can be imaginative, I guess i feel that this way requires more concentration, guts and artfulness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I readily agree, but I think you might be taking it a tiny bit to far.