Tight play against loose players and visa versa?

[sunek]

Hi

I have often heard and read that you should play the opposite of your opponents, which means you should play tight against loose players and visa versa. I have never understood why this should be a good strategy. Can anyone explain it to me or give a link to someone who gives an reasonable explanation?

Personally I try to play a bit tighter than my opponents to be more sure that I am sitting with the strongest hand (I do make exceptions if I suspect that my opponent is trying to steal my blinds and I have a mediocre hand or perhaps even a bit worse).

Regards

sunek

[phillydilly]

Hey,
i've heard this also, but i think it is often misunderstood. The way i interpet this is in terms of aggression, not in terms of starting hands. If you are against loose players who call a lot, play tight as far as bluffing/semibluffing, just wait for a hand and value bet relentlessly.
On the other hand, against tight players who will fold hands, take stabs at pots more, steal more blinds, isolation raise more, semibulff more, bluff scare cards more, a weak tight player will lay down the better hand more often.

just my quick thoughts

[Duffman]

Preflop I always play tighter with tight players around me so that I don't get dominated. However post flop, if I don't hit or if I checked my BB, I might play a little aggressive to try to pick up the pot.

I'll play a little looser preflop against loose players, not by much though. Maybe JQo or K10s, but after the flop I won't be as aggressive without a hand.

This is my interpretation of the tight/loose and vice versa principle.

[PokerCat69]

Playing KTs isn't being loose. Its one of the top hands.

[Duffman]

I usually play KTs only on the button or CO. I'll play it from MP or sometimes EP in loose games.

[Saint_D]

[ QUOTE ]
I have often heard and read that you should play the opposite of your opponents, which means you should play tight against loose players and visa versa. I have never understood why this should be a good strategy. Can anyone explain it to me or give a link to someone who gives an reasonable explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Small Stakes Hold'em says simply (paraphrased) "We don't agree with this axiom."

I think the analysis in this thread is probably the correct way to think about it. Your pre-flop standards should adapt to your oppenents, but not inversely so as the axiom would indicate.

Two quick examples:

1. The rock of gibraltar re-raises in UTG+1 and you have 55 on the button. Easy fold.

2. The drunken maniac who raises at random raises and you have 55 on the button. Re-raise.

Post flop, the other posters in this thread have the right idea.

-D