Originally Posted by sinky

I think what you are trying to say is that players can often have different characteristics pre-flop and post flop. For example you get someone who will just call pf will AA,KK etc rather than re-raise, but when the flop comes up rags they will be AI. So they have gone from Tight / Passive preflop to Loose / Aggresive post flop.

To take this to the extreme you have 16 combinations.....

Pre Flop_____Post Flop
T/P---------------T/P
T/P---------------T/A
T/P---------------L/P
T/P---------------L/A
----------------------
T/A---------------T/P
T/A---------------T/A
T/A---------------L/P
T/A---------------L/A
----------------------
L/P---------------T/P
L/P---------------T/A
L/P---------------L/P
L/P---------------L/A
----------------------
L/A---------------T/P
L/A---------------T/A
L/A---------------L/P
L/A---------------L/A

Post flop, Tight / Loose relates to your conservative / liberal analogy and Aggresive / Passive is still a measure of how often a player will bet / raise

Try making a wheel out of that.

Originally Posted by ChezJ

yet more posts legitimizing this "wheel" concept.

Originally Posted by ChezJ

yet more posts legitimizing this "wheel" concept. why are we perpetuating this flawed theory?

and now the "law of crookedness"? it's a little presumptuous for a relatively new player to waltz in and start declaring new laws, don't you think? david sklanky's been playing professionally and writing books for decades and even he doesn't refer to his fundamental theorem of poker as a "law."

have you guys actually read any of sklansky's books? seriously, i think it would do you a world of good.

ChezJ

Originally Posted by sinky

Wasn't trying to legitimize anything. As a very new player (8 months) I found the whole wheel discussion interesting from the point of view that the replies contained many good points about different styles of play and how people classify there opponents.

I agree with you that the wheel concept is flawed, there are just far too many parameters. One simple example is that within every player category (eg LAGG) there are good and bad players. When I take notes I don't just say "LAGG". I will say "Dangerous LAGG that knows when to fold and will take advantage of weakness" or "Dumb ass LAGG that can never fold TPTK."

Originally Posted by ChezJ

first of all, sklansky's book on the theory of poker is not about limit holdem. if you sit down and read it, i think you will find that he has already quite clearly articulated the very same concepts that you are struggling to express in your posts, and that most of the winning players here already understand.

second of all, your assertion that you have played more NL than david sklansky is absolutely absurd. he has definitely written books on NL strategy, including tournament poker for advanced players, and most people on FTR agree that his book on holdem for advanced players is a must-read for those learning NL.

ChezJ

Originally Posted by Iconoclastic

Ah, finally a great post. And without coming off as a close-minded ass like some person on this forum while making your points too. Now... one thing at a time.

I'd really like you to define Tight vs. Loose as opposed to Conservative vs. Liberal for me. Should there be a distinction between these two pairs of classifications because yours seem identical. I'd like your definitions because it's causing confusion. And should there have been a question mark somewhere two sentences ago?

Originally Posted by Iconoclastic

I understand your Straight vs. Crooked dichotomy, and it's actually your version of what I define as Passive vs. Aggressive (does that help you understand my original Wheel post better?).

"But the loose aggressive player runs into trouble when the table becomes more liberal and they can no longer bluff as much, making their looseness bad value wise. This forces them to tighten up if they wish to beat the table."
- If the LAG runs into trouble when the table becomes more liberal and they can no longer bluff as much, then isn't the BLUFF aspect of their game the part they must adjust if they wish to beat the table, moreso than the LOOSE part?

Originally Posted by Iconoclastic

I agree with your Law of Crookedness. However I disagree about your later premise that aggression is ALWAYS better than passivity. In your example, a "TAG player raises a bluff with a made hand whereas a LP just calls. This gives the aggressor less information as well as the LP player. Now who benefits from this loss of information of both parties if the aggressor is a LAG player?" You say it's the LAG. I say it's the LP. Why?

Because in my hypothetical model using extreme examples, the LAG is ultraaggressive. Every hand the LAG plays, he bets/raises (strangely, I have actually witnessed this type of player in action). The call from the LP actually induces the LAG to fire another bullet or two, sometimes even on the River, where the LP will call him down with a weak hand. Whereas the reraise from the TAG will prompt probably another reraise (probably all in) from the LAG, and now the TAG player will have to lay it down due to lack of any fold equity and let the LAG take the pot (remember this is an oversimplified hypothetical model, so the Tightness of the player is utterly extreme). This is the mechanism by which the LAG beats the TAG, while the LP beats the LAG.

Originally Posted by Iconoclastic

"To benefit from this informational sacrafice, the LAG player has to bluffing more than 60% of the time to make it worth it. Most good LAG players won't be bluffing THAT often!"
-I think this shows that you (and many other readers) tried to use real life people as spokes in the Wheel, rather than see the Wheel as a pure model where the hypothetical player types are at the drastic end of spectrums. The logic of the Wheel only makes sense when you accept the ludicrous characteristics of the player models.

Originally Posted by Iconoclastic

"The second is that even if the LAG player is bluffing, he often times has a FEW outs against the LP player, so really he is semi-bluffing with a very weak draw. Because of the informational sacrafice, there is no way for the LP player to know when the LAG player hits. This allows the LAG player to be much more flexible on the river against the LP player, i.e. betting if he hit and checking if he missed. If the LAG player is raised instead, then they must fold, not allowing them to see a "free" card giving them the possiblity of outdrawing you."
- Again, my LAG player is the consummate LAG player, and thus my LAG player would never check the River if he missed. And he would also never fold against a reraise when he has bad pot odds with his "weak draw", since his Looseness is at a maximum. I think I mentioned in my post that it would be advantageous for the Hero to "shift gears" not only hand to hand, but card by card, decision to decision. Your observation that somehow passivity would allow a LAG to be "flexible" is simply the need for any good player to change player types as many times as needed during the course of one hand.

Originally Posted by Iconoclastic

Loose Aggressive: Bets/raises/calls everything everytime. Never folds.
Tight Aggressive: Bets/raises nuts, bets if no one had bet before him. Folds when reraised without nuts.

Originally Posted by Iconoclastic

*This behavior by the LP and LAG leads to larger pots when the LP has the nuts and the same size pots in every other scenario. Therein lies the edge the LP has over the LAG.

*Relationship between LAG and TAG will be one where the LAG takes down the vast majority of large pots because he will go all in every time. The LAG's chipEV by doing this exceeds the chips from the few pots the TAG wins by showing down the better hand. Therein lies the LAG's edge over the TAG.

*LP vs. TP: tiny pots when no one has anything and when the LP has the nuts; huge pot when TP has the nuts. Edge: Tight Passive.

*Tight Aggressive against the Tight Passive: TAG steals every pot but lays it down when the rock pushes back, and so every pot is a small one with the TAG winning many more of them.

**TAG vs. LP: the edge the TAG has over the LP when the TAG shows down the better hand is nullified by the chips he bluffs away when the LP has the better hand.

**TP vs. LAG: the edge the LAG has over the TP by stealing almost every pot is nullified by the chips he bluffs away when the TP has the better hand.

Main points: 1) Replace Aggressive with Crooked and Passive with Straight in my original Wheel post and read it again. 2) Understand the Wheel's player types as caricatures, not real-life opponents. 3) Just because Sklansky never talked about the Wheel doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you see why (ChezJ)?

Originally Posted by spino1i

Tight vs. Loose is pre-flop only. It dictates how often someone sees a flop.
Conservative vs. Liberal has to do with post-flop only. It dictates how often someone pays someone elses bets off. It also dictates how much someone over- (or under-) bets their hands (this is because your own hand's value is only in relation to your opponents). A liberal player overbets (and overvalues) his hands, and a conservative player underbets (and undervalues) his hands.

Originally Posted by spino1i

The Aggressive/Passive dichotomy and Crooked/Straight dichotomy are not the same. Aggressive/Passive just has to do with how much someone bets/raises as opposed to just calling. Crooked/Straight refers to how often a player bluffs or semi-bluffs.

Originally Posted by spino1i

Well my thread only refers to the types of players you see in the real world (including online). No one ever sees the extreme examples (or very rarely), they mostly just see modified versions of them.

This is problematic for me since I am only interested in a model that uses ACTUAL player-types. Extreme versions of them are unrealiastic and in my opinion do not accurately represent the player base. Furthermore, correct play (and play that follows the Law of Crookedness) never allows for players to get this extreme in their actions. All the players in my model are assumed to be good aggressive players that follow the Law, with the excpetion of the passive players, who cannot bluff because they play passive.

Originally Posted by spino1i

Again I think your assuming a stupid LAG player. Someone can still be considered LAG and stop firing bets when he knows he's beat.