Tight-Agressive Outdated?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry, maybe i'm confused... but what is "tight/aggressive"???.. is playing A8s on the button with 6 seeing the flop "consistent" with tight aggressive??



[/ QUOTE ]

Ya I'd like to hear daniels definition of tight aggressive. Who isnt calling A8s on the button, or raising with it to steal the blinds? I think that there is a difference between bad tight aggressive (playing top 10% of hands) and good tight aggressive (picking spots to play more marginal hands, but generally still playing a 15-18 vpip game).

I also dont see how loose aggressive is going to play that much better at the low limits. I'm playing the $25 NL right now and Tight aggressive works perfectly fine. I just dont see pushing people around or having a loose table image is going to help when people are calling down with top pair no kicker all the way to second and sometimes third pair.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I think the best approach to the TAG-trend is to increase the aggressiveness. Be a tad more aggressive (semibluff and bluff) than the other TAGs but not too agressive. Hard balance to find, but possible. Also call a bit more with marginal hands, since pot odds for calling due to bluff possibility often is there when playing against TAGs.

Well..all the poker theory I have read emphasizes the importance of making your opponents do mistakes. They don't speak about sitting around only playing the top 15% of your hands unless you are playing with players where this technique will actually pay you off (iow. they are making mistakes).

The Tight/Aggressive playstyle has never implied that you should be an easy to read nitwit that everybody can put on a range of hands when he bets.

but if you are trying to bluff calling stations, then you are the one making the mistakes.

i think bluffing and pushing people around works 1000% better at high stakes and/or no-limit (decent minimum $$$$)... at low stakes, i've found it's pointless to make major plays on people.

i think as i asked and someone else mentioned. it's a definitional thing. play really small % of hands in early-mid position and then loosen up on suited cards particularly in late position and in the blinds. but don't start thinking any two suited cards from any position.

BTW, negreanu and hanson would get killed in small-stakes limit if they tried to make similar plays. i'm sure they know that. i mean, they're optimizing their games for the situation. and low limit = difficult to get people with a decent hand to fold.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't that make the variance run a little bit higher?

Ed S.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but in tournament play I think you want high variance. Low variance means you're going to bubble out or just finish in the money a lot of the time. High variance means that more often you will be out early or be out in the higher money finishes.

If you play tight at a loose tournament table, you are passing up small edges for big ones that may never come.

[Peter666]

It is obvious with the poker boom that there are a lot more bad players who play loosely.

Hence 2+2 Published winning SSHE which is strategy for these games. You cannot call Sklansky outdated as he was one of the authours of the book. You must adjust your playing style to the style of the game. While many tables are loose, there are still some tight ones. Adjust accordingly.

Espousing only one type of style universally is stupid. It's the same like Caro saying that only psychology matters in poker which is not the case. Each situation is different.

[AaronBrown]

I like to define "tight" as only entering pots you think you have better than an even chance of winning if they're dealt to showdown. If you play loose, whether in general by playing more hands or on one hand for deception purposes, you can make money either (a) because more than one other player is in the pot or (b) because you figure you can make more money when you hit than you lose when you don't hit.

If everyone else is playing tight, (a) and (b) don't add much value, so tight is the standard strategy. But if other players are playing loose then (a) and (b) become more valuable. If other players are inexperienced, (b) is particularly valuable.

I think the secret is to be able to switch between tight and loose as the occasion demands, rather than picking one and using it all the time. If you do it right, you are playing loose and everyone is folding because they think you're tight; then you switch to tight just as everyone starts to call you.

[In Paradise]

As far as cash games go, at least at low and mid limits, Daniel is wrong.

Thanks for your thoughts guys, I think this is a great discussion.

Is playing loose only for the most experienced players who are able to sense weakness in others and knowing when they're own hand is beat?

Should us lower limit players stick to the hands we know are profitable always? Hellmuth's supertight strategy comes to mind.

At my casino in Perth Australia they're are only 3 tables, with all of them playing 10-20 Hold Em. As a result the games are relentlessly wild with a very high variance for me. Players frequently raise with hands like 5,6 suited and call with 3,6 offsuit. At least 6 people minimum see the flop with the tables 12 handed.

How should I squeeze every dollar out of this game?

Thanks,
Li.

[ QUOTE ]


BTW, negreanu and hanson would get killed in small-stakes limit if they tried to make similar plays. i'm sure they know that. i mean, they're optimizing their games for the situation. and low limit = difficult to get people with a decent hand to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's interesting that the strategy that a top player uses wouldn't work against less skilled players.

But from what I've seen it's true.

As a small stakes recreational player, I've found that what works for me is playing good solid poker. When I maintain strict starting requirements and play hands agressively, mixing in but not overdoing bluffs and semi-bluffs, I do well. When I start getting cute with marginal hands, things go south.