"Action" vs. "Weak-Tight," explain please?

[Baltiman]

Ah well, I did try to remain as objective as possible. My main concern is to keep the material accurate and of high quality (hence I don't post too often).
Sorry if I offended you.
Enjoy your writing.

Baltiman

[PugX]

It was this post that Chris reffered to.

Loose preflop and tight postflop

I'm a rather new player and I was confused too.

Jay! is a great poster and i draw the conclusion that "Loose preflop" was not part of the tightness that he referred to.

This thread have som sad posts, but it has some great stuff to. Zag's text is really great and Turnipmonster's is good to. Thank you very much!

Chris, I always read your texts I like them a lot.

Best regards, Pug

[SheridanCat]

You've seen two definitions, actually, and Jay!'s was not correct. The definitions in this thread are correct.

Regards,

T

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
And Jay! said it described a player who is "loose pre-flop and tight post-flop."


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi.

I was describing the new party 6 max tables, not a weak tight player. Players are playing looser than they normally would on these tables, they haven't adjusted yet though, they may soon. Postflop they are worse than they are preflop though.

At the moment i'm betting anything with any chance of winning, read: any outs at all.

[ML4L]

Hey scrub,

The quote is by Mike Caro. I intentionally omitted his name because I hate being one of those lame people who spouts off "wisdom" from prominent poker writers, but I agree; it is one hell of a quote. Definitely my favorite poker-writer-quote that I've come across...

Just google "Mike Caro ignorant" and it'll take you straight to the article...

ML4L

PS to Ben: He probably did mean muffled; Dr. Seuss-esque...

[scrub]

Wow--I never would have guessed Caro. I'll have to go check out the article.

Thanks!

scrub

[Gildersneeze]

An excellent quote, and one I'll remember. Here's one for you that's sort of on topic, but not enough to act as a standalone reply.

"It has often been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out the fact that the emperor wears no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor."

In other words, some people in this thread who want to quickly point out others' faults have plenty of faults of their own. But it's usually the quickest and loudest to point out others' faults that are the most flawed, as they try to draw attention from theirs and to others, while sadly never realizing that all the effort does nothing to actually CORRECT their own flaws.

On Topic: Cris, I'll give an example of a guy who sat down in my Saturday Night NL game. No matter his pre-flop holdings or raisings, he constantly ended up seeing monsters under the bed. He folded a lot pre-flop (tight), and later on all streets to any substantial bet, unless he had the stone-cold nuts (weak), so if he actually called your bet and your hand didn't improve to the current nuts, you knew to check it to him and fold to a large bet.

I don't remember how many times he layed down what would have been the best hand from the flop on down just because it wasn't the pure nuts and someone bet into him. He proclaimed it after several hands were done. "Maaaan, I folded JTs to your $5 bet," on a JTK flop where he would have filled up on the turn, certain he was going up against trip Kings (I held AKo and ended up winning with Kings and Tens, Ace High to Kings and Tens, Queen High). I must have bluffed/semi-bluffed him out fifteen times, let alone what other people did to the poor lad.

Had he just figured on his Two-Pair with the back-door flush/royal draw (King on board was King of Diamonds, suited with his JT) being a lot better than he did, he would have grabbed a buttload of money from me and the other guy (final board: JTKT2, showdown: Me: AKo Other player KQs).

He called my $5 raise preflop, and then let it go for five bucks post-flop because he was "sure he was beat." Weak-tight, IMHO.

[William]

Cris,

It seems history repeats itself.
All the newbies that don't have a clue are fascinated by your posts and you are being corrected by the more experienced players.

Sorry to see that nothing ever changes.

William

[scrub]

Oh boy...

If you guys are going to have another deathmatch, how about doing it in the Zoo? Or maybe the stock market forum... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

scrub

[Al Schoonmaker]

See pages 108 ff of Mason's "Poker Essays." A weak-tight player:
1. Plays fairly tightly
2. Is predictable
3. Has the ability to fold marginal hands.
4. Bluffs infrequently.
He states "this type of play is the first step toward winning," but WT players don't stand a chance against advanced players.
Regards,
Al