Mr Brier - I respectfully disagree

[motorholdem]

I just read Mr. Brier’s article and one part struck a chord that has been bothering me for some time. I wanted to write and get some thoughts on it, so here goes.

Please keep in mind I am not as experienced as most of you folks. In fact, I thought the play by Mr. Brier in the first hand was, rather odd. I think that if a novice had posted it there would be feedback such as “stop chasing with an unimproved Ace, you are lucky the board paired.” I thought the play look Fishy, so that shows you what I know.

Anyway, the point of the post is about disregarding loose players.

I follow different forums and read as much as I can, and what I keep seeing as a common thread about loose, aggressive players is commentary similar to that posted about “Perry”, as extracted from Mr. Brier’s article below.



According to MR. Brier, “Perry’s cap meant nothing.”
With all due respect, why do Mr. Brier and other posters completely disregard the bets of loose players, simply because they are loose?
I fully understand that one has to consider that Perry is “less likely” to have the goods than a tight player. But even if you say he is 2 or 2.5 times less likely to have the goods, you can’t write EVERY bet off by a loose player on EVERY turn of EVERY hand.
The most common analysis seems to be “he is loose, therefore he MUST have nothing.”
This is far from correct. Loose players catch as many good hands as the rest of us - they don’t catch less “quality” starting hands just because they are loose. And we all know that loose players tend to get “more” out of their real quality hands because their bets, raises, and re-raises are less respected. Also, they have the ability to turn a garbage board into a good hand by the very nature of some of the marginal hands they play.
Sure LAGs may lose more in the long-run, but categorizing all their bets as meaningless just because they are loose is folly. Yet, how often have we seen posters talk about doing this very thing. “Oh, I wasn’t worried about Freddy’s 3-bet, cause he’s in every hand.”
So, I would like to pose the question. How can people summarily dismiss a loose player as almost being a non-entity in a hand, just because he “might (or even probably) have sub-optimal holdings?
I don’t ALWAYS put a LAG nothing. It seems that a key part of Mr. Brier’s rationale in hand #1 was concluding that Perry could not possibly have ANYTHING, despite his betting. And that rationale formed part of the reason that allowed Mr. Brier to continue on with the hand.

Feedback is welcome.And don't be gentle - lol