what are weak tight players thinking about?

[PokerMike]

[ QUOTE ]
if you search out from the archives posts from when i first starting coming here, you will see that i didnt know a damn thing. 70% of everything ive learned about poker is from these forums. 20% is from experience and 10% is from books.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had read ZERO books on poker by the time i was 8-tabling 3/6. These forums taught me everything i needed to know. They are invaluable.

[xpander]

When I first started out, I was almost always afraid my hand was second best. Weak-tight players are tighter than most preflop to avoid situations with smaller edges and marginal hands. The edge needs to be clear before they become aggressive. A lot of their misguided thinking comes from blanket statements and poor rules of thumb (i.e. "Fit or fold", "Never draw to an inside straight"). And I think most are unaware of EV and try to win pots, not money.

Just my two cents.

[Monty Cantsin]

I think pzhon has it exactly right. In addition to mis-valuing different types of money I think a lot of weak/tight players overvalue comfort - ie. they place a very high value on avoiding the pain of losing.

/mc

[puzzlemoney]

As I read this, I wonder (as I'm always fairly sure I'm not being aggressive enough yet):

Does too much poker reading help us to play more weakly? I'm fairly new to the game, and I have done more reading than playing (perhaps not literally, but it feels like it sometimes--I've definitely learned more from books and forums than from actual play at this point).

It seems like everything you read, though, talks about the nuts--drawing to your nut straights and flushes, reading the board for hidden straights, looking out for the possible full house when the board is paired. Except for SSHE, you rarely hear about how often your marginal hands can win pots.

Does anybody else believe that a lot of reading (books, particularly--the forums here certainly advocate a more aggressive style) creates a more fearful mood for beginners? That an emphasis on how to get that unbeatable hand is slowing inexperienced players down? Even books that are regarded as good by most people hereabouts spend a lot of time talking about how to avoid losing to big hands, and how to make monsters of your own...

...Apropos of nothing, really; a couple of posts here got me to thinking about it...

[johnc]

Weak-tight players are always worried about the "monsters in the closet". I know this because many, many times I've heard them mumble, act disapointed, or basically fall apart when circumstances don't work out to their benefit such as when an overcard hits, or the boards pairs. They make statments such as "I don't raise with AA because I always lose with them" (I can't count the # of times I've this!!). They are defeatists. I like playing with them because they can be relatively easy to push around and tend to be transparent in their play. The players I can't seem to "crack" are the very LGPs who love to gamble - right now that's my biggest leak - big time!

[gulebjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...=14&fpart=

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for a hilarious link

[StellarWind]

There is a lot of discussion of tight/passive players in this thread. I don't consider that tight/passive and weak-tight are the same thing at all.

Weak-tight players are an inferior form of TAG. Their preflop play is generally in the TAG range and their postflop play is reasonably aggressive. Weak-tight players are distinguished from good TAGs in two major respects:

1. They play too tight on the flop. They apply the fit-or-fold concept found in various beginner books to many playable flops.

2. They are often folders, dropping many good hands on the big streets because someone took a shot at them. Some weak-tights don't have this problem.

In contrast, the better tight/passives:

1. Avoid many good preflop raises. They prefer to see the flop before investing extra money.

2. Play most of the flops they should be playing but in a passive way.

3. Frequently slowplay and trap as a deliberate strategy.

4. Miss many value bets but some bluff appropriately.

5. Rarely fold the best hand on the turn or river.

Weak-tights evolve into strong players by gradually learning to play more types of hands and developing shorthanded skills. They are truly baby TAGs and are on the correct road.

Tight/passive players have embraced a different approach to the game that is moderately profitable but only in low-limit games. They progress by becoming more skillful at what they do (especially trapping) but need to unlearn some basic things before they can become truly good players.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
I might be able to answer that, since I've been accused of being weak-tight.

First, my stats: My VPIP is 13.55, a little over the 10% you cited. On the other hand, my BB/100 is 2.72, so maybe I've been on a good run. Or perhaps my BB/100 would be even higher if I played KT off from UTG.

But I can tell you what I'm thinking about is Do I have the best hand? Do I have the odds to go on? Can I make my opponent fold?

If the answer is no, I don't play.

I don't think having a high VPIP in and of itself makes you good. I think being good is about making the right mathematical choices, at every stage of the game.



[/ QUOTE ]

You definitely don't want to be adding KTo UTG to your range of hands. Even us 20 VPIPers aren't playing that.