Is it so bad to be passive (a rock)?

[AlexMR]

Hi,

I have been playing since january, I had never played poker in my life. I deposited 200 and Only have about 450 now. Mostly because of the bonus, given that poker Tracker says that I am down 300. The thing is that the style of play that best suits me is passive. I was trying to "fix" my numbers and be more aggressive but it was a disaster; I lost a lot (later I understood this was a terrible mistake). During this process of change was when I lost most of my money. After I quit that, I have been winning again. Not much, but winning and sometimes break even.

The question stands: Is it so bad to be a rock? isnt Phil Hellmuth Jr., who is the consider by many the best player, or one of them, a ROCK?

thoughts please...

AlexMR

[junkmail3]

.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi,

I have been playing since january, I had never played poker in my life. I deposited 200 and Only have about 450 now. Mostly because of the bonus, given that poker Tracker says that I am down 300. The thing is that the style of play that best suits me is passive. I was trying to "fix" my numbers and be more aggressive but it was a disaster; I lost a lot (later I understood this was a terrible mistake). During this process of change was when I lost most of my money. After I quit that, I have been winning again. Not much, but winning and sometimes break even.

The question stands: Is it so bad to be a rock? isnt Phil Hellmuth Jr., who is the consider by many the best player, or one of them, a ROCK?

thoughts please...

AlexMR

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the Psychology of Poker by Al Schoonmaker. He discusse this exact issue.

Short answer is that you can do anything you want. Whatever brings you the most enjoyment. Just realise the potential consequences of your actions.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
isnt Phil Hellmuth Jr., who is the consider by many the best player

[/ QUOTE ]

Baaahahahahaahahahahaah.

are you talking about limit or no limit? If you're talking about limit, then it does not pay to be a rock. However, you have to start out as a rock and slowly get more agressive. If you just start out trying to play aggressively you'll probably misapply it and end up costing yourself. It takes a long time to learn how to beat this game, you're on the right track by coming here.

[AlexMR]

Thanks for taking time to answer.

That is exactly my question: What are the consequences of being a rock? Why is it bad? I really dont understand.

[pryor15]

passive? yes. absolutely.

a rock? not so much, but it's still not a good idea.

i'd say work on your aggression factor w/o loosening your starting requirements too much

[AlexMR]

Thank you.

My rating is TP A. Right now I have an aggression factor of 2.1 and I raise preflop 6.65%, but I think that number went up during my "correction period". I will see how everything turns out.

I have noticed that, at least in Party, the most profitable way to play is sL A A. Maniacs. Cant be that way. How can I possibly put 3 dollars in 45 offsuit? I dont feel it right. I might some day. Who knows?.

Thanks for replying again.

AlexMR

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
I have noticed that, at least in Party, the most profitable way to play is sL A A. Maniacs. Cant be that way. How can I possibly put 3 dollars in 45 offsuit? I dont feel it right. I might some day. Who knows?.
AlexMR

[/ QUOTE ]

first off slaa aren't maniacs.

second off, buy SSHE.

[Harv72b]

If you practice good starting hand selection and do a decent job of folding when you're beaten postflop, you can make a profit playing small stakes online poker simply because so many other players practice neither of these skills. In that, you are correct that it's not so bad to play like a rock.

The reason that you (eventually) want to be an aggressive player is that a more aggressive style will win you more money. By raising instead of calling, both preflop and postflop, you drive out your opponents more often. The fewer players that are contesting a pot against you, the more likely it is that you will win (obvious simplification, as the cards matter, but you get what I mean). And by raising in spots where you are likely (but not certain) to have the best hand, you win more money in the pots you do win.

It's a plain and simple fact: by playing tight poker preflop, you are limiting yourself to only about 20% of your hands. Of those, you will "naturally" win about 33% of the time (when I say "naturally", I mean end up with the best hand; this does not include times when your opponents fold better hands due to mistakes and misreads). In other words, you will win about 7% of the total hands you're dealt. If you're only winning a few bets each time, that will not do a good job of cancelling out the times when you see the flop and later streets but don't win, let alone your blinds. By being aggressive & winning as many bets as possible the few times you win a showdown, you increase your profits substantially.

Like the other poster said above, don't try to force it all at once; it takes time & experience to work a more aggressive style into your game. But do start trying it piece by piece; reading Small Stakes Hold'Em by Malmuth, Miller, and Sklansky will help.

Oh, and if you ask Hellmuth, he'll tell you that he's an Eagle, not a rock. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[AlexMR]

ok. SSHE by Miller is first in my list. What other do u recommend?