LAG Tables

[jacks321]

I always read that these are supposed to be among the easiest opponents to beat, so I guess I'm doing something wrong. I'm playing at a $.50/$1 table at PP right now with several LAG players, which means that preflop is almost always capped and there are 3-5 players at every showdown regardless of the board or the action. How does your strategy change when protecting your hand and bluffing is not possible, and reading your opponents barely is?

I'm just a bit frustrated after pocket aces got cracked by a capped preflop and player who bet every street with a q7o only to hit runners for 2 pairs.

[milesdyson]

That last sentence is why they're profitable. A guy capping Q7o and betting every street only to turn and river a Q and then a 7 is only making money on that hand 1 out of a 100 times.

How can you see not see that that guy is a blessing to everyone else at the table? AA doesn't win every hand.

[Klak]

lag tables arent the easiest to beat. loose passive tables are. a very aggressive table does cause more varience, as you found out painfully.

[illunious]

recent link

There's a -ton- of info on 2+2 about these games. Bascially, you're going to be losing more bets than normal in standard pots and winning gigantic pots when you have the winning hand. You can tighten up substantially to reduce your swings. With patience, you can play only AA, KK, QQ, AK and still make a killing.

[mr pink]

if the table is running laggy, you generally want to tighten up some. suited connectors lose a lot of value because all the raising cuts down your odds so bad it makes in unprofitable to draw. pocket pairs get paid off huge if they flop a set and some high cards come out for the lags to raise on. ehh... if its really a problem just move to a different table.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
With patience, you can play only AA, KK, QQ, AK and still make a killing.

[/ QUOTE ]
This made me want to check this out.

You're 221:1 to get AA, KK, or QQ, and you're 83:1 to get dealt AK.

Total probability of getting one of these starting hands is:

3(1/221) + (1/83) = .0256

Let's round to .03 for simplicity.

This comes out to be 3 playable hands per 100 hands dealt. Every 100 hands you lose 7.5 BBs to blinds..

You would need to earn an average of 2.5 BBs per played hand just to break even (My numbers are between 3 and 4 BBs per hand for these hands).

Obviously this is neglecting checking in the big blind, but I don't care that much.

Anyway, it would be cool to have a VPIP under 3%.

[mr pink]

[ QUOTE ]
Every 100 hands you lose 10 SB and 10 BB, so 15 BB total.

[/ QUOTE ]

since when do you pay a bigbet to see the flop? its 10 small bets and 10 (1/2 of a small bet) so 15 small bets.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every 100 hands you lose 10 SB and 10 BB, so 15 BB total.

[/ QUOTE ]

since when do you pay a bigbet to see the flop? its 10 small bets and 10 (1/2 of a small bet) so 15 small bets.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm referring to small blinds and big blinds, but I guess I could change that.

[mr pink]

yeah im just pointing out that a big blind is the equivalent of 1 small bet and that a small blind is half 1 small bet.

[mr pink]

yeah im just pointing out that a big blind is the equivalent of 1 small bet and that a small blind is half 1 small bet. so you wouldnt have to make up as much on the hands as you previously put