In defense of weak-tight in NL cash games

[MonkeeMan]

You must be multi-playing about 20 tables to average this much at these limits.

[ QUOTE ]
I can employ and sometimes do employ a strategy like the one described at the .10/.25 and .25/.50 NL games and win. I dont know about win rates or any of that cause I do this for enjoyment only each night after the family goes to bed. I average $50-100 profit per night doing something that is fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe you just watch REALLY LONG shows.

[ QUOTE ]
I only know that at the end of a couple TV shows I have $100 more then I started with.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, I'm not buying it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lemme help:

[ QUOTE ]
See the hand develop cheaply

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But in general, there are so many LAG’s in baby NL cash games

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a contradiction. You can see the flop cheap and have a couple of LAG's bet big at a flop that you connected with. Nice try.

Maybe you should go back to the med-hi nl threads where you say things like:

"My main goal there was to stay out of the way of the other big stacks unless i had a reason to tangle with them and pick off the constantly-rebuying fish. in reading NL literature, this seems to be a consensus among players like ciaffone etc. who play with top players who are better than them."

[/ QUOTE ]


of course it's not, how could i have been so shortsighted. LAG's only bet big when you want them to.

as for my comment, I don't get why you posted it; do you need help understanding why being selective when entering a hand is a good thing?

lemme know if there's anything else you need explained.

fim

[tek]

Myth: “Tek, you haven't posted in a single hand-related thread in like an 8 month backlog.”

tek: I’ve only posted for four months. Who said anyone has to post hand histories?

Myth: “Both of your articles are pretentious, self-absorbed, and condescending.”

tek: Thank you for that. And thank you for continuing to read them.

Myth: “Advocating a weak-tight approach to the game is one of the worst suggestions I've ever heard.”

“Assuming you meant we should generally bet when we connect, this is still tight-aggressive, not weak-tight.”

“Saying that someone is weak-tight preflop makes very little sense: weak-tight is a strategy for your overall game.”

tek: I’m constructing a hybrid strategy. Call preflop, then bet out or raise if you hit the flop.

Myth: From reading your past hands you also seem to maintain the position that AK is a drawing hand and should be limped preflop. You allude to that in this post as well, by saying "Group 1 and 2 hands don’t always connect with the flop." That's fine, but you aren't raising because you have Ace high preflop, but because you will have the best hand at showdown with a far greater frequency. Odds-wise (speaking both of pot equity and limiting implied odds for the opponent), it is almost always correct to raise with AK. Your command of these concepts is feeble at best.

"And you can’t just raise preflop with these or you will be too predictable, so you limp with them more than raise." And let people outdraw you when you're a significant favorite? Terrible, terrible advice. You mix up your play by raising marginal hands, not by limping powerful hands.

tek: So you are saying to raise marginal hands and to raise Group 1 and 2 hands…How is that mixing up your play. You are saying raise everything—loose aggressive…

Myth: And finally, your characterization of baby NL games as filled with LAGs is so utterly incorrect that I question whether you have ever actually played them.

tek: The games are filled with them. But each table will have a mix of styles. I have said previously that at the live tables I play at tight players usually take turns playing against their table’s Lags depending on which of the tight players has a good hand on that deal. Tight players don’t usually play against each other.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
...as for my comment, I don't get why you posted it; do you need help understanding why being selective when entering a hand is a good thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is we are both saying to be selective and playing against loose players who overstep their bets relative to what we hit the flop with. I'm also saying to save preflop chips for the flop.

[fimbulwinter]

wow. just wow

your analysis is almost the exact opposite of the whole point of that post.

That said, I'm done discussing this- if someone wants me to explain the above I'll do it gladly. I fear I am no match for your superhuman ability to not only misunderstand the points of others, but also to misunderstand the very ideas that you yourself express.

fim

[mcb]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also saying to save preflop chips for the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate this advice. I cannot see how it could be to your advantage to raise with only hands AA-QQ and AK. This is what your statement seems to be getting at - correct me if I'm misreading it.

Also many LAG players who overstep their bets do it for a reason. They know you are weak-tight and the percentage of hands they can get you to fold cover the times when you play back at them.

[tek]

No. I'm saying call preflop and either fold on the flop or raise (unless you are first to bet).

This is No Limit. If you raise preflop with marginal hands you will fold. If you raise preflop with G1 and 2 hands and get popped--what then? Call and see a middle rainbow rag flop and fold?

I'm saying see the flop cheaply. If you don't connect, then fold. If you do connect then play aggressively.

"Also many LAG players who overstep their bets do it for a reason. They know you are weak-tight and the percentage of hands they can get you to fold cover the times when you play back at them."

Yes, but when you do play back at them on the flop it is when they have popped 30-40 out there. If another LAG and/or short-stack raises it up even further AND you have connected witht he flop and go over the top on them you win all their bets plus the pot or hopefully someone goes all in and you break them.


If you hurt a LAG or break them, they are then not "covering the times when you play back at them".

[mcb]

I cannot begin to understand how you think playing this way can produce optimal results, even at PP 25NL. There is absolutely no variation in the suggested play and a semi-observant monkey may be capable of extracting money from someone who plays like this. Albeit the lowlimit party games are much diferent than what I currently play, I can't see anyone playing like this making much more than 1 or 2bb/100.

Regarding preflop play, it is rare that I raise 3-4bb and get reraised. When I do get reraised, I call and slow down.

[tek]

I'm changing the title to "Creating a hybrid weak-tight/tight aggressive approach to small stakes NL cash games".

To sum up:

1) See the flop cheap. Either the table will gravitate to calling the BB or you can just call small PFR's.

2) If you connect on the flop bet out utg or raise/reraise and take the pot. If you don't connect, then fold.

3)This is a "start-out" strategy for each night. When you have two or more racks, my strategy calls for more aggression on the tight side and also Lag play increasing with the level of OPM you are achieving.

My view is that one uses a range of play beginning by being defensive with your buy-in preflop, aggressiv eon the flop but adding some tight aggressive and LAG play.

Just as the table begins to see you a passive rock you are turning up the heat with their chips. As you begin to change gears and play between W-T, TAG and LAG they will become very fearful of you yet give you action. You still control what hands you play, yet you are giving yourself more leeway to hit less rockish hands.

I did not say be weak tight all night.

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
Fim makes some good points in all of his posts. NL is an art and even at the smallest stakes it is hard to win at a decent rate with a systematic approach. Shift gears based on how others think you are playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi, MCB.

I don't want to get dragged into the main argument of this thread, but I thought your observation here was interesting. I certainly agree that NL as we climb up to the higher limits becomes an art form, but I really wonder if this is true for games like Party's $25, $50 and $100. Do you really change gears against these people? Really? When the median length of time they stay at a table is about 50 hands? They just aren't collecting enough hands on you to be seriously forming ideas about your strategy, assuming even that they could or wanted to.

Sure, there are occasional decent players at the table, but they make themselves pretty obvious and I treat their bets with some scepticism and their raises with a healthy respect.

I don't know, maybe you're right and I'm the clockwork monkey here, but it's my impression that somewhat mechanical play will do just fine at these limits.