Is there value to being able to play multiple styles well?

[4_2_it]

Things I would like to see discussed include:

1) What styles should every player strive to have in his toolbox (TAG, LAG, WT, etc.)?
2) Are there levels where a certain style works best or doesn't work at all? (Please don't link to Fimbulwinter's masterpiece or the FAQ, I am looking to generate some discussion here)
3) Should your ability to play a certain style be a factor when deciding whether to move up?
4) How often do you need to shift gears (play include the level you are playing as I am interested in answers from all levels of play)?

That's enough for starters. I'm not sure where this thread will go (if anywhere). I am just looking to see how worthwhile it might for me to learn a true LAG style (I can play TAG, but prefer/slip into SLAG quite a bit)

I have my opinion (which I will share after the posters have chimed in).

I am mostly LAG/SLAG. I would very much like to learn how to play TAG properly, and I think I might start a thread about that. But yeah I think being able to play more than one style helps a lot. I often sit down at tables, LAG is up and then switch to SLAG when players adjust. If the table is full of people who like to play back at you, I'll gear all the way down to TAG or WT. But I'm not very good at WT or TAG play so I mostly stick to LAG.

[Ghazban]

It depends on a given player's situation. If you have one style that works well for you in the game you're playing and have no plans to ever change games, you have no reason to play a different style.

If someone wants to be the best overall poker player they can be (independent of financial results), that person should obviously learn every style (as well as every game).

For a player with aspirations of moving up to the biggest games around, being able to play all styles in all mindsets is necessary to beat those games (by that, I mean being able to play well in all styles despite whatever else might be going on in the game; many players will revert to their most comfortable style when something unfamiliar happens at the table).

[amoeba]

at some point, your opposition will be good enough where if you don't change your style multiple times ingame, you will not do well.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
It depends on a given player's situation. If you have one style that works well for you in the game you're playing and have no plans to ever change games, you have no reason to play a different style.

If someone wants to be the best overall poker player they can be (independent of financial results), that person should obviously learn every style (as well as every game).

For a player with aspirations of moving up to the biggest games around, being able to play all styles in all mindsets is necessary to beat those games (by that, I mean being able to play well in all styles despite whatever else might be going on in the game; many players will revert to their most comfortable style when something unfamiliar happens at the table).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good overall advice. Can we take it down a notch and apply it to a player who beats NL $50 playing TAG and is considering moving up to NL $100. He has taken shots and there is no bankroll issue.

Does this TAG need to develop a LAG style or will he be able to get by as TAG here as well?

At what level(s) does changing styles really make a difference?

Most importantly, what style will you be employing tonight when play heads up? My strategy is to be a calling station and suckout g00t [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
at some point, your opposition will be good enough where if you don't change your style multiple times ingame, you will not do well.

[/ QUOTE ]

What levels do you see this? Is it really table dependent? I have seen a few players at NL $100 that meet your criteria. There seem to be a lot more at NL $200. Am I on the right track? Are TAG and LAG the two styles to learn first? Or should you work in WT or SLAG before LAG? (Assume player started out as TAG)

[stu-unger]

i agree with what ghazaban said. i am a supa dupa nit. that is whats comfortable to me. i realize though, that style won't work for ever. i think having a TAG basis to your game is probably the best, but the ability to change gears needs to be present at the higher levels. i also think that in order to be optimal at any level above the 50 game players need to have the ability to play LAG or TAG depending on table conditions.

i used to be a LAGy maniac, then i changed my game up and became TAG. now i want to go back, but u know what they say,"once u go TAG, u never go back..."

[subzero]

[ QUOTE ]
4) How often do you need to shift gears (play include the level you are playing as I am interested in answers from all levels of play)?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you can put a timeframe on this. I think it's better to shift gears in response to the changing table conditions. If a maniac sits down and starts lagging it up, that's a good time to shift gears. My style is TAG, but I'll tweak my strategy depending on the table conditions (e.g. heads-up with a donk, to the right of someone who's all of the sudden playing like a maniac, or really tight players in the blinds).

You should definitely learn how to play all styles. I play mostly TAG but I adjust to the game. In short handed games I tend to play more loose in late position as positional advantage is more important. If my table is full of rocks, I will start playing more loose and stealing more pots. It is generally best to play in a style opposite of what the other players at your table are splaying. I also have occasionally found players so bad that when they enter a pot I will enter will almost any 2 cards. The reason is, if I hit 2 pair or better, I have a good chance of taking their whole stack. I want their stack before they lose it to someone else. I also like to show a bluff against these opponents once in a while. This puts them on tilt and it is much easier to take their stack. I call these my fish implied odds.

If you're playing TAG and a maniac sits down, aren't you already playing well? And shouldn't you change be based directly on his play, not in general?