Tight Agressive Passive for low limits?

[StephenW]

Over the last 6 months playing low limit (1/2,2/4) hold'em, I seemed to have had more reward playing Tight Agressive Passive than Tight Agressive Agressive. In most of the games I have played TAA I have attracted a lot of callers, and although a win can be lucrative in the circumstances, quite often I found myself being outdrawn.
Now I realize that on lower limits you will get outdrawn more often but judging by my bankroll, playing more passive post flop has been a sucess.

Anyone else any thoughts on this?

[DMBFan23]

I respectfully disagree.

[jluker7]

Your post doesn't make much since, How does being passive keep your from being outdrawn, yet being aggresive you get outdrawn more.

I think the more aggresive you are the less you get outdrawn. Maybe your using your aggresion in the wrong places, and giving people odds to outdraw you.

[jluker7]

BTW, didn't mean to sound rude. Just puzzled at your question.

[ggano]

Even if your play has no effect on being outdrawn, it's a mistake to be passive because you *might* be outdrawn on. When you make them put more money in the pot, some percentage of that money is going into your pocket, on average. Don't forgo that.

The problem is that you really remember then times you get drawn out on, but the times when all those extra bets go into your pocket aren't as remarkable, so it skews your perspective.

Let's put it this way - if you're drawing, you'd really like to get a free card, right? Why are you giving your opponents something they'd like?

[meep_42]

Win chips, not pots.

-d

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
Win chips, not pots.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

Key to understanding the mind of a fish.

[Frank A. Adrian]

You may be getting outdrawn because you raise the pot odds enough to get others to come along when you don't want them to or because you are too aggressive when the board is textured against you. If this is your problem, the solution is not being passive, but being a bit more *selectively* aggressive.

[mack848]

It is, I believe, generally agreed that as you move up the limits, aggression gets higher. Is this because the better players play higher, or, in part at least, because being slightly less aggressive suits the fishier games?

Maniacs excluded, I usually find that I am the most aggressive player at my 50/1 tables - yet my Tot-Agg (excl pf) of 2.2 puts me miles away from being aggressive post flop (using Bison's ratings).

Half of the TA-A players (again, using Bison's ratings)in my DB are losers. They are selective pre-flop and super aggressive post flop - but losers none-the-less. Equally selective, but slightly less aggressive players seem to do better at my 50/1 tables. Is this because the 'better' players at these limits choose the wrong times to push?

Having said all that, I do realise that forcing players to make the mistake of calling raises without odds is always +EV.

I believe that a postflop aggression score of 3.0 is super aggressive. If you could build a game for 50/1 play, would you choose to be this aggressive?

[TheHip41]

[ QUOTE ]
Over the last 6 months playing low limit (1/2,2/4) hold'em, I seemed to have had more reward playing Tight Agressive Passive than Tight Agressive Agressive. In most of the games I have played TAA I have attracted a lot of callers, and although a win can be lucrative in the circumstances, quite often I found myself being outdrawn.
Now I realize that on lower limits you will get outdrawn more often but judging by my bankroll, playing more passive post flop has been a sucess.

Anyone else any thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tight Aggressive Passive is bad. More like Weak Tight Passive. If you are getting draw out on, you are playing right.