|
|
#14
12-13-2005, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: TAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] alright, let me give it a shot in 6-max, i classify TAG as player who has a pretty tight range pre-flop (raising AA-99, AK-AT, KQ), but when he hits a hand / is the pre-flop aggressor, continues with that aggression post-flop, ex. c-betting a TAG is someone who i dont expect holding 45s in a raised pot. [/ QUOTE ] So basically a TAG is a totally predictable and straightforward player? Why would anybody not want to play against them? [/ QUOTE ] I think of a TAG as a person who mainly plays solid cards aggressively, but who can also mix in a few sneaky mid suited connectors and such. Because they play the occasional 76s the same way they play QQ, they can expect to make a higher percentage of successful bluffs. Also, I think of a TAG as a person who's not afraid to get their chips in the middle, as opposed to your garden variety weak/tight. 
|
|
#15
12-13-2005, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] alright, let me give it a shot in 6-max, i classify TAG as player who has a pretty tight range pre-flop (raising AA-99, AK-AT, KQ), but when he hits a hand / is the pre-flop aggressor, continues with that aggression post-flop, ex. c-betting a TAG is someone who i dont expect holding 45s in a raised pot. [/ QUOTE ] So basically a TAG is a totally predictable and straightforward player? Why would anybody not want to play against them? [/ QUOTE ] Hey, at the 10/20 game, you probably want to play against them all day long. My understanding is that by the time you reach that level you'd better have learned a good LAG style. But for us down at the 0.10/0.25, there are infinitely richer targets. I don't like playing against villains who only enter pots with premium hands, bet the hell out of them, price me out of my draws every time, and release when they think they're beat and punish me when they hit. I like the ones who make fundamental mistakes. They call too much, badly overplay top pair or slowplay their monsters. TAGs may be straightforward, but I don't think of them as making basic mistakes; they aren't fish.
|
|
#16
12-13-2005, 02:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] alright, let me give it a shot in 6-max, i classify TAG as player who has a pretty tight range pre-flop (raising AA-99, AK-AT, KQ), but when he hits a hand / is the pre-flop aggressor, continues with that aggression post-flop, ex. c-betting a TAG is someone who i dont expect holding 45s in a raised pot. [/ QUOTE ] So basically a TAG is a totally predictable and straightforward player? Why would anybody not want to play against them? [/ QUOTE ] i dont mind playing against them, id just much rather be playing at a table w/maniacs or a bunch of loose passive calling stations
|
|
#17
12-13-2005, 03:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TAG
I'd certainly consider myself TAG. I play about 21/15 preflop, so I can certainly be reraising preflop with 54s, but I don't see how you could call me a loose player. I just raise or fold most of the time. Straightforward players are my favorite group to play against, since it's very easy to run them over by raising a lot.
|
|
#20
12-13-2005, 11:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TAG
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but it just occured to me that Bob Ciaffone could probably be classified as a TAG. And I think he's pretty good, no? [/ QUOTE ] This is what I was going to say. Anyone here who claims that TAGs are the best opponents to play against is delusional or is simply clueless about what the definitions actually mean. I suspect it's mostly the latter, since half the time I see the term "LAG" used it's simply describing aggressive play in general with no relation to the tightness or looseness involved.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
