In defense of weak-tight in NL cash games

[tek]

In defense of weak-tight in NL cash games

In a previous article (Zen and the Art of Small Stakes NL Cash Games) I wrote about limping to the flop and then betting aggressively if you connect. I said to be tight aggressive when I was actually advocating a weak-tight approach pre-flop or on the flop that becomes aggressive only when the hand develops on the flop or later, or otherwise becomes a fold.

In this article I want to defend the weak tight approach used early in a hand. Many people talk about weak tight like it’s a disease. It is a tool, just like tight aggressive, loose passive and loose aggressive. A screw driver is for tightening screws and opening paint cans. A hammer is for pounding nails and pounding projects that just can’t be fixed…

The four categories of poker listed above are tools of sorts too. Loose passive is generally a bad tool. You go in with marginal hands and call allowing everyone else to stay in and beat you.

Weak tight should be thought of in the same way as a lion or tiger hunting. They crouch in foliage while a herd of gazelle or whatever approaches. They identify an old, young and/or sick member of the herd and lunge when they have a lock. They don’t just charge out willy-nilly at the first sight of the herd.

In baby NL cash games the same approach should be taken. See the hand develop cheaply. When you connect you can either bet and know a tight player with second best hand will bet or raise or you can go over the top of a betting LAG. A couple of big hands plus a few moderate pots each night and you are in business.

Examples: You have pocket pairs and want to flop a set. At 8-1, you need to see the flop cheap-not raise it preflop only to see overcards, straight draws or flush draws instead of a matching card to your pair. You have connectors. You need multiway pot-building. No preflop raise here. Group 1 and 2 hands don’t always connect with the flop. And you can’t just raise preflop with these or you will be too predictable, so you limp with them more than raise. You can make up for light preflop action on the flop and turn—it’s No Limit…Plus calling a preflop raise with drawing hands is fine. I'm just saying as a tight player, it is not best to raise out early because you will get popped by a LAG and will most likely fold if you haven't connected.

Some starting hands do require you to occasionally raise or reraise pre flop and continue the momentum (tight aggressive). And a few semi-bluff advertising plays are necessary to mix up your play get action. Also, when you are playing with a rack or two of OPM, you can selectively toy with LAG play.

But in general, there are so many LAG’s in baby NL cash games that waiting in the brush (weak tight) until you have a monster and they bet big and overextend themselves is a valid course of action—not the negative behavior that many make it out to be.

[mythrilfox]

You still have yet to contribute anything useful to either this or any poker-related forum. Try again.

Oh, and since you refused my amends, no apologies this time.

[tek]

Yet you read all my posts... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[edpsu92]

A bit harsh wouldnt you say? He offered what appears to be a well thought out OPINION. That is what many of the posts on forums are.

[excession]

You seem to be advocating 'slightly loose passive passive' play- see a fair number of flops as cheaply as you can, check/fold unless you hit big, make the overaggressives pay wehn you do hit. It seems to make sense but in reality it's hard work playing that way. The aggressives will bet at you post-flop whether they hit or not. If you insist on at least top pair or a good draw to call them you are folding maybe maybe 5 out of 6 times on the flop (and when you call you may not make your draw and may or may not win).

My icon for these players on PT autorate is the bag of cash - my name for them is 'minifish' [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I'm not saying that you can't win using this strategy but the average loss rate for such play is about -6BB/100 I think.

If you tighten up pre-flop and become a rock they are slight losers (-2BB/100).

[edpsu92]

First, let me say I do not necessarily agree with the strategy of the original poster. Second, I am not in a position to refute the statistics you give so I will assume them to be accurate.

However, this much I do know for my own self anyway. I can employ and sometimes do employ a strategy like the one described at the .10/.25 and .25/.50 NL games and win. I dont know about win rates or any of that cause I do this for enjoyment only each night after the family goes to bed. I average $50-100 profit per night doing something that is fun. The simpletons I find at these tables make it almost too easy. The point I am trying to make is that there are alternate strategies that will work at the small limits and depending on what your goals are "winrate" wise, they will work. I dont need the money so passing time and having fun while watching TV while winning a mortgage payment a month is just gravy. It doesnt matter to me what my winrate is. I only know that at the end of a couple TV shows I have $100 more then I started with. This is after over 100K hands.

I understand why the strategy he suggests is not textbook and will not work at the higher limits but depending on your goals the tables exist at the lower limits where it will work and if it defies the textbook strategies or the data than so be it.

[warlockjd]

Isn't this the standard line against horrible opponents?

[Rococo]

My biggest beefs with this approach (and I have a lot) are the following:

1) Even if it is possible to win at baby NLH with this strategy, it doesn't prove much. As long as you aren't a complete idiot, you can win at baby NLH with a lot of different strategies.

2) Only the very best players are capable of shifting gears effectively all the time, moving back and forth from loose to tight and passive to aggressive. Most of the rest of us have to work on developing a "baseline" playing style that we can learn to adapt as we become more experienced. As a baseline style, this sucks because you will never progress to even medium limit games. It is useless in higher limit games to limp with everything (which will be impossible most of the time anyway) and bet only when you connect with the flop. If you are playing me, I am going raise you preflop fairly often to define your hand, and bet into you every time you check the flop to me. In most cases, I will fold if you check raise on the flop, so you won't get any serious money out of me. "Aggressive" players at higher limits are not going to stack off with top pair when you checkraise the flop, especially if they know that 90% of your bets mean that you "connected" with the flop.

[edpsu92]

I assumed it was. It just seems that at the first mention of weak/tight play or whatever you want to call it, it is assumed that a person is clueless or is a fish. I suspect this is probably the case most of the time. However, I think that always assuming that perspective is short sighted cause there are tables that exist where this strategy works. Further, some people may be perfectly content with the profit that can be made at these low limit tables using this strategy. Not everyone on here is playing to earn a living. Some of us dont need the money but arent going to turn down $12K or more a year having fun either.

[edpsu92]

I agree with everything you said. Again, my only point is that some recreational players may not want to achieve anything more then playing as a hobby at the lower limits and they can still be a profitable player with a more weak/tight game. We cant assume that every player wants to move up limits, that they do this to pay bills, etc etc. To be honest, I am wealthy but I happen to enjoy playing small stakes poker. There are people like me who exist and if some simpletons want to give me $12K a year while I am enjoying my hobby so be it.