GSIH: Starting hand charts a little ...academic?

[Zim]

Hi guys,

Decided to grind away at Limit Holdem, so I read GSIH by Ed.

Really enjoyed the book, and I've been fortunate to have a good start. Playing the $1/$2 tables, the cards have been kind. Much different dynamic than NL, its a relaxing change.

Nonetheless, many of my tables I play on are exceedingly tight (yes, I know ... find better tables. However, the good bonuses require I play a sub-obtimal games). In fact, flop percentages in the mid 20's ... low 30's are not uncommon, even at my level (Prima network).

Yet I'll still come across some hyper aggressives attempting to steal the pots. Many times I'll have a tight table with one LAG in any given pot.

Here's my problem:

I recognize that the starting hand charts are designed for a wide range of circumstances ... but even so, it's apparent (even to this limit newbie) that different people require different strategies.

Isn't drawing distinctions based on position somewhat insignificant? I was caught somewhere between mid and late position the other day wondering if I could call with Q9s (I believe the cutoff is QTs for mid) ... and it seemed rather inconsequential.

Who was I facing? Q2s might be sufficient against a maniac ... AT might be folded against a rock. Given the range of people and personailities, I don't see the need to distinquish between many hands BASED on position.

So I guess my question:

I think the tight/loose game distinction (while valid) is not as clear cut as it is made out to be. In my games, on any given hand I'll be facing a LAG or a tight player. One or the other, sometimes both. Can anyone point me to a site or online resource that based your poker play on the people you are playing against?

I believe Abdul had some essays that addressed this, any further info would be appreciated.

I'll also be happy to hear any guidelines. I'm a little surprised that more beginners books/articles don't stress who you are playing against over theoretical +EV hands from a given position.

Anyway, sorry for the length, I'll try to be more brief in future posts.

Cheers,
Zim

(Ps And once again, I found Ed's book to be excellent. It is responsible (in part) to my good fortune as of late at the tables.)