In defense of weak-tight in NL cash games

[StoneRose]

I generally agree with your idea, but i would point out (or reiterate if anyone has already mentioned it) that it works much better at a 1/2 $200 or $250 max game but would not be a good strategy for party poker where you only can start with 50x the big blind. You will find that you have lost 25% of your stack before you even marginally connect with a flop. With the blinds so high, you will lose a lot as players raise pots you limp into -- especially ones who pay attention.

[fimbulwinter]

Fresh from my inbox; thought tek's comments should be shared instead of just wasted on a moron like me:

Title:
"Good Riddance"

Body:
"I don't care what you have to say. And if you don't like what I have to say you should go away. Why do people like you waste your time with people you don't agree with.

And if you are so smart, direct me to your great articles so I can learn from a greatplayer like yourself"

I guess in the future, if someone posts bad advice and backs it up with worse logic, we shouldn't say anything, because hey, people dont want to get better at poker by reading a forum about it, right?

fim

[mcb]

Like I said I no longer play at party but I did build a good chunk of my roll there by "nut peddling". It becomes increasingly more difficult to play like this, though, even at the 100NL level as I eventually found out. If this is what works for you then by all means stick to it. I wouldnt count on it getting you too far beyond the party NL games though.

On a side note, I have been reading these forums for well over a year and can assure you, tek, that fimbul is one of the most respected NL posters on this site. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[mythrilfox]

You can pick and choose things out of context in order to generate some semblance of an argument all you want. Neither I, nor anyone else on this forum, is fooled.

1. I said that you are in no position to criticize Fimbul because he contributes regularly to these forums, often with very keen insight. You do not.

2. You are still pretentious, self-absorbed, and condescending.

3. So your strategy is basically another, suckier version of tight aggressive, where you opt NOT to get more money in when you are assuredly a favorite, and where you allow people to cheaply draw out on you with mediocre hands? Is that what it is? And am I to understand you are so desperate for attention that you have given this "hybrid strategy" the misnomer weak-tight? That way, people will read your thread and be like "Oh wow, someone SUPPORTING weak tight? How innovative!"

4. You are groping so ineffectually for an argument that you ignore the intent of my assertion (which you sure as hell know) and attack my rhetoric? I *NEVER* said raise everything. You know full well I was referring to the fact that occasionally raising speculative hands like 56s or 33 will greatly improve the action a mega-tight/aggressive player gets on his monsters. Your approach, on the other hand, simply allows for cheap outdraws and guarantees that Hero gets virtually no action when he raises preflop. Which is better?

5. No, they're not filled with LAGs, they're filled with LPs. There are LAGs, but if you're going to construct a general strategy to combat the average low-stakes Party opponent, one should unequivocally gear it towards LP players. How can you possibly contend otherwise? Anyone on these forums will back me up on this.

So at first it appears you have 5 solid rebuttals in defense of your strategy. But now it seems you have none. Go home, tek.

[NORM77]

I completely agree with your comments.

The majority of opponents at Party NL25 are Calling Stations, Maniacs or weak tight.

If you find your self at a table with mainly weak tights, I think it is appropriate to steal pots and play cautiously when they decide to play back at you.

Most of the time though you will have a calling station or two plus an aggressive player at your table, and to profit against these players you need to show them hands as neither will give up a pot till the river most of the time.

I would bet when you move up to the higher levels where creative poker is more important that you do not run into Calling Stations that make up the majority of the tables.

[tek]

In one of my earlier posts I stated quite clearly that this is aimed at $1/2 $200 buy-in Live tables.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
5. No, they're not filled with LAGs, they're filled with LPs. There are LAGs, but if you're going to construct a general strategy to combat the average low-stakes Party opponent, one should unequivocally gear it towards LP players. How can you possibly contend otherwise? Anyone on these forums will back me up on this.


[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, I said each table will have a mix of players. I am patiently targeting the LAG's at the table for the times I can set them up for a big play. That is what this strategy is about. I'm not looking to play every hand and win every pot.

Folding a lot preflop and on the flop will not make a couple of LAG's avoid action with you when they think they have a good hand or bluff opportunity. In my experience they usually bet the flop big ($30-50), get called or raised by a couple of other players. When you have a monster, you will take down a rack.

And yes if the LAG's fold and you are preflop with just LP's you can play looser.

[excession]

I tend to come at poker from a spirit of rational and scientific enquiry.

Theories should be tested with empirical data wherever possible.

I read the books of course but prefer to believe 100K of hand history data in PT. Apart from anything else that data is an exact fit to my playing environment. The books won't be.

Of course you soon notice that the data tends to converge with the advice of the better books, but if you don't get into the spirit of testing theory against what actually happens when you play you will never really improve.

So Tek - let's have a link to a Poker Tracker screen grab of your last 30K hands at 10c/25c and 25c/50c NL (one with the 'more details' box open on the general page). That will show everyone how well your strategy is working and exactly what you're doing..you can obscure your online tags so there are no ID issues if you like.

It would also prove your doubters wrong of course (as I said before I don't doubt you can win using this style I just think it's hard work compared to being TAA and that I'd still recommend TAA in preference to any passive style).

As a matter of record over my last 40,000 hands TAA (average +8B/100) players are bettered only by 'vanilla/ABC' players +16B/100) in my low stake NL database
Vanilla are 25-35% Vp$iP, PFR 4-8%, PFA 1-2. WtsD% 20-30%
TAA would be <25% Vp$iP, PFR 7%+, PFA 1.2+ (WtSD% not used)

If I was to recommend a low stake NL strategy that wasn't TAA, I'd go with that ABC style and not the Mini-fish or Rock you seem to be advocating.

[jtr]

Interesting data, Excession. Thanks.

Dumb question, but are those stats for 6-max or full ring? Just checking.

[TheWorstPlayer]

I'm hesitant to add to this thread, but this initial post is just so bad that I think I have to. You will end up losing more money when you lose your stack with TPTK to a hand that never should have been able to see the flop for cheap. There is no question that the most profitable strategy is to play tight aggressive preflop and aggressively post flop, too. Also, you should mix it up so that you are not easily read. Just read any post where a good player is talking about another good player. It inevitably starts with "He raises, so he can have anything." That is because good players play aggressively preflop with many different types of hands. That puts the pressure on their opponents to make a hand to play back at them with. Following the advice in this initial post, all of the pressure is taken onto yourself to make a hand. And when you finally make a hand, everyone knows you are a rock, so if you get any action it means you are losing to a hand (which most likely only saw the flop because you refused to raise it up.) Good luck with this.