Maybe a stupid question?

[Woolygimp]

How are you guys so sure the extremely aggressive playstyle predominantly portrayed in the NL forum is the only correct (and high +ev) playstyle capable of beating NL games.

Basically I'm asking, "Why are PSB's more valuable than 1/2 PSB's in TPGK/TPTK situations?"

Betting 1/2 pot gives certain draw's better odds, but you're also more likely to get payed off by lower pairs/lower kickers. You're also less likely to pay off a set or 2 pair.

Keeping the pot small and extracting value from crushed hands can make up for the fact that you will get outdrawn--but when you get outdrawn the pot will be small so you can get away cheap. Being super aggressive "can" drive up the implied odds.

So basically does anyone here use a weak/tightish playstyle to consistently beat the 1/2 NL tables or higher?

[xcrack999]

[ QUOTE ]
Keeping the pot small and extracting value from crushed hands can make up for the fact that you will get outdrawn--but when you get outdrawn the pot will be small so you can get away cheap. Being super aggressive "can" drive up the implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you got it backward. If you bet the pot, you're giving your opponent LESS implied odds than betting half the pot because there's less money left in your stack for your opponent to extract if he does draw out on you.

Having said that, there is a place and time for both half-pot and full-pot bets because pot-control is a necessary tool against good players. It's just that when people call me with crap whether I bet half-pot or full-pot, I would rather bet full.

[Big_Jim]

What does bet sizing have to do with aggresssion/tightness?