Tight Passive the Way to Go?????

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
I fail to see how its a boring topic, every poker literature out there preaches aggression, aggression, make semi bluffs etc etc, but do you really see anyone play this way online with the exception of shorthanded high limit games?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you can be successful playing tight somewhat passive in the smaller no limit games, which is why this post is in the wrong forum. In bigger games, this strategy will get crushed....

[ QUOTE ]
but do you really see anyone play this way online with the exception of shorthanded high limit games?


[/ QUOTE ]

yes, Although many successful higher limit players play differently they are all at least selectively aggressive.

[ QUOTE ]
like I really want a bunch of responses from people who are struggling at the party 25 NL tables.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just by reading the posts and weeding out the posts with faulty logic from those that have merit cause you to actively think about the game. By doing this, you are improving.

And there is nothing wrong with lower limit players reading and posting in the higher limit forum....Just don't post about lower limit concepts.

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think one thing you and a lot of other players are not realizing is that being inordinately tight has its advantages. Some of the tight players I have seen do bluff on occasion, and they are rarely called down. They get a lot of respect. Being too tight does have some advantages in table image.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is not what you are talking about in the original post....this is tight aggression....This would not be considered passive

[gomberg]

Not if you play well postflop. If the table is passive and your opponents are generally making mistakes postflop (and you know which kinds of mistakes and how to take advantage of them), then play many, many hands. I remember playing any connectors / 1-gappers, even some 2-gappers, any pair, suited aces, etc. from any position at some of those tables. If there is some skill at the table, then you have to tighten up. Even at 5-10 full right now, I usually play over 25% VPIP a lot of the time (usually only on party [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ). A tight strategy works there as well, but it's more fun to play my way and I think it's making me more money. I have no way to verify this, though.

remember, in NL there are many ways to play profitably. Experiment and see what fits you the best. The tighter you are preflop, the postflop decisions are generally easier to make, but you may make more money (and increase variance a little) by loosening up sometimes.

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its frustrating to me, because I like to mix up my game and take chances. But it seems to me that against non regulars you get paid off whether you mix your game up or not. I don't really see what these guys are doing as real poker, but on the other hand, they seem to be making more money than me, so am I a fool not to become tight passive as well???



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You seem to think that mixing it up is "real poker". I think what has made the winners win in the game you are describing is that they have found the right strategy. "Real poker" is not "mixing it up", it's adjusting your style of play to the table/opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is not mixing it up, the problem is randomly mixing it up. It is a very good thing to "mix it up" but each and every action you take should have a purpose and should be tailored to the opposition you are against.

[freemoney]

play 6 max, much more fun

[DaveduFresne]

I mix it up when the table is playing very tight, or sometimes when I have been getting bad cards to the point where I am one of those guys who has played one hand in an hour I will mix things up so as not to be labeled a rock, and also under the assumption that since I have been so quiet I will get respect.

David

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
I mix it up when the table is playing very tight

[/ QUOTE ]

if you're playing in an online 200NL table playing very tight, find another table

[emil3000]

Yeah, I apologize for the condescending tone in my post. It was poorly worded.

I would like to add that I probably am about as tight as those players you describe. %wise at least. This does not mean necessarily mean that I am predictable. Like the other posters (who are much better players than me for sure) have said you need to adjust to the table.

[DaveduFresne]

Ok, lets talk about a big limit topic then. How exactly will a tight player get "crushed" in a high limit online 10 max ring game?

The blinds aren't coming around very often, any game no matter how high that is remotely worth playing has at least one dead money player in it, with all the multitabling plus the come and go of online it is not easy to get good reads on all the players....I could go on but I really don't see how a passive strategy is going to get crushed in a high limit full ring game?

Unfortunately the highest full ring game I've seen online is 10/20, and based on my observations it didn't seem to play much different from the stakes I'm used to. Preflop play was even a bit tighter, but not greatly so. Otherwise, I didn't see a lot more "moves" or bluffs being carried out.

David

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, lets talk about a big limit topic then. How exactly will a tight player get "crushed" in a high limit online 10 max ring game?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the tight play that will get crushed, it's the passive play.....Basically you're not extracting enough money when you have the best of it, and you're not stealing available pots at opportune times.

For instance, a classic tight passive player will raise pre-flop with AK, get one caller, and then check fold when he misses. This is horrible for three reasons. 1. you often still have the best hand. 2. the better players at higher limits will never pay you off when you hit your hand. 3. you will loose a lot when you hit your hand but still get outflopped.

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, I didn't see a lot more "moves" or bluffs being carried out.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would say you are definitely wrong about that. The difference is, they are generally successful more often, so you see them (or a showdwown) less frequently