Theoretical question on passivity at middle limits

[gildwulf]

Do people think that a person who plays a semi-loose passive style like 30/5/.8 could be a winning player at the middle limits with proper table selection? I ask this because I see a lot of over-aggression at the 5/10 and often c/calling is very close to the optimal play against these players.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
Do people think that a person who plays a semi-loose passive style like 30/5/.8 could be a winning player at the middle limits with proper table selection? I ask this because I see a lot of over-aggression at the 5/10 and often c/calling is very close to the optimal play against these players.

[/ QUOTE ]

While check/calling is sometimes a very good line against aggressive players, it is not really that close to optimal at 5/10. Most of the overaggressive players pay off with very weak hands when they are played back at. I can't tell you the number of times that I have bet/3bet the flop with TPGK and been called down by an overaggressive player with a weak piece of the flop (middle or bottom pair, say, or even an under pocket pair to the board). Getting that extra 1 BB from the two extra SBs going in on the flop is significant, because this situation happens often enough.

I think you can play a 30/5 style PF and be a winning player with good postflop play, but it's much harder to win with an AF below 1. You simply must get value out of your winning hands. Even a reckless style like 45/25 could probably result in a small winner if he played well postflop. I think a 25/18/.8 player would only be a small winner even with decent game selection.

This is all speculation of course. Definitely a 30/5/.8 could be a winner for a long time due to variance and the fact that so many 5/10 players just play badly. But check/calling is not "very close" to optimal play, though it is a good line in certain situations.

[gildwulf]

When I say situations where c/calling is close to optimal play, I mean where you catch a minor piece of the flop against a maniac and call it to the river. For instance, you have 67o in BB, call a SB raise and call down on a board of J72 three suited.

Edit: I am in NO WAY suggesting that check calling is an optimal play in all situations, even against maniacs. Of course you need to bet strong hands for value.

[sweetjazz]

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that you didn't realize that check/calling isn't always optimal, but more to emphasize that the benefits are probably not as great as you think.

A secondary consideration is that if a 30/5/.8 doesn't know how to play aggressively when he should, it's unlikely he's going to coordinate his check/call lines with the times when they are optimal. Sure he'll sometimes make pretty good plays like the hand you described above, but he might also just call down with J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] on a J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] board in the hand you described. If SB is literally raising with any hand and going to see the river with any pair or club, then not raising the turn when it comes the 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] is a mistake. As is not following through with a value bet on the river.

Also, a lot of LPs would call the flop and turn with Qh Td here and then fold the river UI. That's such a bad strategy, and even calling the river, while better, is still bad.

So even if a LP could probably be a small winner, they will probably make so many bad plays from failure to understand the game that you won't see it happen. Maybe it's theoretically possible, but it would involve a typical player adjusting his weak play in certain situations but not in others. After all those adjustments, he's bound to catch on to the benefits of being a TAG. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[PTjvs]

[ QUOTE ]
Do people think that a person who plays a semi-loose passive style like 30/5/.8 could be a winning player at the middle limits with proper table selection? I ask this because I see a lot of over-aggression at the 5/10 and often c/calling is very close to the optimal play against these players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roll back, this time last year.

I had never read any poker book. I had deposited $200 onto partypoker, and I was 2 tabling 5/10 SH. Im pretty sure i was a winning player. Basically, my entire plan was to raise preflop first in with AJ+, 99+ & KQ, limping behind with all but AK & JJ+ if the pot was already open limped. I would fold all but hands I'd open raise with if it was a raise to me, UNLESS i had the other player tagged as an "overplayer" (anything I'd later learn to call TAG or LAG), in which case I'd try to isolate them with most anything with showdown value (I considered Ax to be ahead of their range).

I would openlimp Axs, J9s or any small pocket pairs. basically, my entire plan was see flops cheaply, and only put bets in with top pair or OESD/flush draw. I would then play passively by 2+2 standards, betting all top pair hands until raised, and then check/calling down, calling down with all top pair hands (never raising) if it was a bet to me. I would often check/call hands less than top pair if I felt the other guy was bluffing, espcially against "button betters". I would bet draws on the flop, but then check/call the turn if I missed. I was capable of making moves if I thought a player was stealing too much.

I am positive I was a winning player. I did not have poker tracker of course, but I am sure I made between 8k-12k, not playing very much as far as hours go. I eventually busted out, because I practiced poor bankroll management skills & withdrew too much, but I was still pleased with my winnings.

That was a longwinded answer, but yes, Im sure you can win at 5/10 6max playing semi-loose passive. I did it myself for quite awhile. I rebuilt starting in May of this year & got serious, and have been grinding full table 2/4 & 3/6 for 100k hands or so. However, I've gotten tired of overcashing out & have decided to get serious about moving up in limits. I started 3/6 6max last week, with great results so far (I can't believe how much of a boost in RB 6max is!). I anticipate moving up to 5/10 6max within a month or two, but this time I'm sure I'll be more agressive.

That said, you can certainly win a lot of bets vs. overagressive players using rope-a-dope.

jvs

[Lost Wages]

[ QUOTE ]
Do people think that a person who plays a semi-loose passive style like 30/5/.8 could be a winning player at the middle limits with proper table selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that if you are good enough postflop to be a winner playing 30/5/.8 then you could certainly win a lot more by playing aggressively.

Lost Wages