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

[CrisBrown]

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

[The WET BEAVER]

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

[Ben]

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

[Baltiman]

[ 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.

[Ben]

"Some," not "all."

Fair point about post-count though.

[Zag]

Wow, I am totally flattered. By the way, I feel pretty confidant that I am the worst player in the group you named, without even a close second. I know how to do the math, and I am pretty good at knowing what I don't know (and usually manage to keep my virtual mouth closed at those times) but I am sure that the rest of them would clean me out in a real game. The fact that the Party $200 buy-in games are the biggest NL/PL games I have ever played should tell you that I'm not in their league.

Concerning the original question, the general classifications always apply only at a particular moment. For some people, one classification is true all the time, but there are many people who fit one classification preflop and another postflop. Plus, of course, there are many who shift gears and can't be pinned down with a label at all.

My understanding, which I think agrees with turnipmonster's, is this:

Tight vs. Loose: Tight players will have the goods. If they call, it is because they have a decent hand, if they raise, it is usually because they have a good hand (unless they are also aggressive and might be bluffing). But a tight player would never be betting with just an average hand that they think is as likely to be behind as ahead.

Weak vs. Aggressive: Weak players are afraid to make bets or raises. They just want to "get along." The aggressive players love to be the center of attention, the one driving the game. They might bet or raise for value, for position, for intimidation, or just for the hell of it.

These two axes are independent, so you get four corners:

Weak-tight: If he raises, he has a monster. Otherwise, it is pretty easy to put him on a hand, because they play pretty ABC. Note that, although you can put these players on a hand pretty well, it is hard to make a ton of money off of them because they always have something if they are mixing it up. They don't provide a lot of implied odds. However, often you can have a lot of "steal equity" (a phrase I really like which I have taken from one of limon's posts) against these players because they will fold when a scare card hits and you bet out.

Weak-loose: a.k.a. The money trees. When you have the goods, they will call you down. When they have the goods, they are too timid to push the betting themselves, so you get to draw at them cheaply. Just don't try to bluff or even semi-bluff them, because they will just call (and show you middle pair). Also, with these players, you should immediately assume two pair when an ace hits on the turn or river and they come alive, because they play lots of lousy Ax hands and will call on the flop if their x makes middle or bottom pair.

Loose-aggressive: a.k.a. trap bait. Obviously, there are degrees of aggressiveness, but the really aggessive ones will bet and bluff far more than is correct. You can call them down with middling hands (that you would fold against a weak player), and you can check-raise them with big hands. Don't forget that the really do sometimes have a hand, so you still have to fold your junk. Just remember that every time you fold to their aggressiveness, you are teaching them to keep doing it, and there is a big check-raise in your future. Also, remember that you not only have to beat the maniac who is bluffing like crazy, but you have to beat anyone else who is still in, as well.

Tight-aggressive: This is where you want to be most of the time. These players generally have the cards or odds to draw when they are calling, and they generally bet and raise when they think they have the best hand, charging the loose players to draw.

Again, people might be loose-aggressive preflop and tight-aggressive post-flop, or whatever combination. I try to be tight-aggressive most of the time, with occasionally forays into loose-aggressive (especially with position), in order to mix it up. I will even play weak-loose (or more like weak-neutral) against a player who is outrageously loose-aggressive, letting him bluff himself to death against me.

I generally am a lot tighter on the flop than on any other round, but this comes from playing a lot on Party, where the blinds are fairly high compared to the stack sizes.

[CrisBrown]

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

[Ben]

Well said Cris.

[ML4L]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure Cris is truly sorry for wasting the half of a second that it took for you to read the title to her post.

The fact that you wasted five seconds writing a smartass reply is your own problem...

And remember, "For everything you know, there is a time before you knew it. For every single thing that someone else is stupid for not knowing, there was a muffled moment in your own life when you didn't know it, either. And there are definable instants in our lives before which we are ignorant and after which we are informed." But, that's probably lost on someone who would write the response that you did...

I generally mind my own business, but this one struck me for some reason. Oh well.

ML4L

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
"For everything you know, there is a time before you knew it. For every single thing that someone else is stupid for not knowing, there was a muffled moment in your own life when you didn't know it, either. And there are definable instants in our lives before which we are ignorant and after which we are informed."

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is that quote from? I like the "muffled moment" line...

scrub