Definition of a nit?

Title says it all. What is a typical VPIP/PFR number for a nit?

hard to say. a nit is somebody afraid to gamble. expect rocks, tight-passives, and some TAGs. watch "went to showdown"...should be low. watch "win$ when showdown"...should be high.

if you can bump them off of hands all night long, they are definitely nitty. if they fold the river...another possible sign.

10/6, another sign

basically players who only play when they have a good hand

I'm a nit

Originally Posted by Dislexsik

basically players who only play when they have a good hand

no, thats solid play. nitty is when you only play with a MONSTER hand...and still min bet it while folding to a raise with 2nd to the nuts...

Solid play is not playing only when you have a hand. the best players take many pots where they don't have the best hand, or opponent has missed too.

Nits will only play premiums
Rarely if ever attempt a steal or bluff

Despite great reads, will be thrown off hands even when they know the opponent must be bluffing

Originally Posted by mixchange

Solid play is not playing only when you have a hand. the best players take many pots where they don't have the best hand, or opponent has missed too.

i think we are starting a debate we dont mean to because of a misunderstanding.

what i understand as a "nit" is someone afraid to gamble. that only plays the better range of what the board has to offer. yes, that means premiums because a nit will NEVER risk hitting a 9 as TP w/o it being his set.

AT THE 25 NL LEVEL, this IS "solid" play. you should not try to "steal a pot" with air down here, monetarily, is does not make as much sense as "waiting for a better opportunity."

should you mix it up a bit? YES. will a true "nit?" NO. do they miss some value? YES. do they post positive win rates? YES, i believe most do...at levels below 100 NL. can they win (long term) at higher levels? NO, unless they learn to mix it up.

dan harrington has the image of a nit, so does barry greenstein. can they win pots with air? YES. do they? NOT VERY OFTEN, as they stick to the cards that give them the best chance to be profitable...premiums (90% of the time).

when was the last time you saw harrington bluff with air like moneymaker did in '03 at the final table? yes, he pulled off a nice SEMI-BLUFF in '04, but i am asking for a bluff on absolutely nothing. i doubt any of us have seen one (by harrington). live or on tv.

mix, i think we will agree, for the most part on this: whatever level you play, you will be more profitable if you are not afraid to play less than premium cards, and arent afraid to take some chances. but we probably disagree that (at the lower levels)...nitty = solid play; therefore, positive win rate.

Originally Posted by Chopper

Originally Posted by mixchange

Solid play is not playing only when you have a hand. the best players take many pots where they don't have the best hand, or opponent has missed too.

i think we are starting a debate we dont mean to because of a misunderstanding.

what i understand as a "nit" is someone afraid to gamble. that only plays the better range of what the board has to offer. yes, that means premiums because a nit will NEVER risk hitting a 9 as TP w/o it being his set.

AT THE 25 NL LEVEL, this IS "solid" play. you should not try to "steal a pot" with air down here, monetarily, is does not make as much sense as "waiting for a better opportunity."

should you mix it up a bit? YES. will a true "nit?" NO. do they miss some value? YES. do they post positive win rates? YES, i believe most do...at levels below 100 NL. can they win (long term) at higher levels? NO, unless they learn to mix it up.

dan harrington has the image of a nit, so does barry greenstein. can they win pots with air? YES. do they? NOT VERY OFTEN, as they stick to the cards that give them the best chance to be profitable...premiums (90% of the time).

when was the last time you saw harrington bluff with air like moneymaker did in '03 at the final table? yes, he pulled off a nice SEMI-BLUFF in '04, but i am asking for a bluff on absolutely nothing. i doubt any of us have seen one (by harrington). live or on tv.

mix, i think we will agree, for the most part on this: whatever level you play, you will be more profitable if you are not afraid to play less than premium cards, and arent afraid to take some chances. but we probably disagree that (at the lower levels)...nitty = solid play; therefore, positive win rate.

well if you're going to define harrington and greenstein (then presumably harman and reese) as nits, then I'm be a nit.

1. but if you think they don't bluff, you're wrong

2. also, even if these champion players bluff less than others, a nit will fold TPTK to aggression. He doesn't bother trying to make a read. He read AOK's post and will fold to any raise if he doesn't have a set. Greenstein, Harman et al have the guts to call an all-in with bottom pair where appropriate, and a nit neither has the guts nor the ability to sense the appropriate time

3. these great players have the ability to open up and play aggressively. They've all won tournaments and you don't win tournaments by being a nit especially during the final few players. Harman can play ultra aggressive and had an excellent record against Andy Beal heads up

nit = afraid to gamble. wait for a sure win or close to it.
great player = try to create situations where they can gamble favorably and gamble

agreed, salsa.

and you are right, those "tighter" guys DO bluff. i made mention of that.

however, dont you think tourneys are different than cash games? as far as bluffing and nits goes?

i feel the blinds in tourneys will, eventually, "force out a nit." either blind him away or force him to push all-in with a marginal situation. however, a cash game will allow those guys to "nut camp" all day long.

sure i think greenie and harrington bluff in tourneys, and, yes, they win with bottom pair (when appropriate). but most of the time you see them bluff is in the later stages of a tourney, not early on. in the later stages, either they are forced to make a bluff, or they know their opponents are forced to fold to their bluff...all because of chip stacks and blind structures. good tourney players use those situations to their advantage...and these guys mentioned are among the best i'm sure.

but, how often would you find harrington bluff in a cash game? if you have seen HSP on the GSN, have you ever seen Greenie bluff? nope, and that is with the tv showing the world his "image."

give me 10k hands with these guys (HU or in a full ring stituation), and i feel you would all agree with me here...I WOULD LOSE MY SHIRT! most of us would.

what i am saying is that even though we consider greenstein and harrington "among the best," they, too, are a bit "nitty."

People who ask such questions :P :P :P

Originally Posted by Chopper

when was the last time you saw harrington bluff with air like moneymaker did in '03 at the final table? yes, he pulled off a nice SEMI-BLUFF in '04, but i am asking for a bluff on absolutely nothing. i doubt any of us have seen one (by harrington). live or on tv.

LOL at Dan Harrington being a nit. He's pretty much the definition of TAG.

I love how that with the popularity of LAG play, TAG players have started to become viewed as nits.

It's useless defining a nit as someone who plays 5/3 and folds the second nuts to a value bet because they're a) incredibly rare and b) so extreme that it's obvious how to handle them - they're just a caricature of the tight player.

I think when people refer to nits in their HHs and strategy posts, they mean set-farmers and nut-campers, players who almost never bluff (apart from cbets), only play/raise premium cards pre-flop, who can be pushed off marginal holdings with comparative ease. How does that sound?

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

Originally Posted by Chopper

when was the last time you saw harrington bluff with air like moneymaker did in '03 at the final table? yes, he pulled off a nice SEMI-BLUFF in '04, but i am asking for a bluff on absolutely nothing. i doubt any of us have seen one (by harrington). live or on tv.

LOL at Dan Harrington being a nit. He's pretty much the definition of TAG.

I love how that with the popularity of LAG play, TAG players have started to become viewed as nits.

i agree completely. one thing not addressed is that "nit" has a negative connotation. like you're a wussy or something. it shouldnt. i think the negative comes from the "looser" (not necessarily lag) player who cant get "paid off" by a tag/nit.

if you look at my numbers (FR 17/9/2.25), i also am the definition of TAG (or TAG-lite, right Renton?), but i get called a "nit" all the time.

fwiw, i play golf (used to be a club pro) like i play poker. much like Don Johnson in TinCup, not like good 'ol Roy McEvoy. in the fairway, on the green, two putts for par. not...woods right, woods left, hole out from 130 yds for my birdie.

its VERY boring and straightforward, but it PAYS...for me.

Sorry, the use of the word "only" threw me off.