Non-aggressive winning players

[moronest]

In general it would appear that a tight aggressive style is the only winning style if you believe what you read here and in other forums. (for NL)

Now I understand that we are usually talking small stakes games online and lower buy-in games in B&M.

However, I believe the more prolific winners are the crafty & sly players who are not tight & aggressive in its common orthodoxy.

Comment from each side of the fence please.

Id love to see comments from the sly & crafty.

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

I wonder if due to the very high aggression at higher limits like this, if playing opposite (passively) would actually have benefits since i bet he catches a ton of bluffs.

I was thinking sort of the same thing the other day. Strategically, it seems like deviating from an aggressive style would be best in games where the rest of the table is playing very aggressively. I don't see why it would be any different than playing tight because the rest of the table is playing loose, or vice versa...

I think playing tight aggressive poker is the best way for newer players to play. You get involved in less pots with better hands, and therefore don't spend as much time playing more pots in marginal situations. The good loose aggressive players are usually experienced players, so that's why most small stakes are playing "TAGG" poker (they are inexperienced and not playing mid stakes or higher).

However, except in unique situations, i don't think playing a non aggressive game would be as profitable as an aggressive one.

[sejje]

However, except in unique situations, i don't think playing a non aggressive game would be as profitable as an aggressive one.

A non-agressive game, or a tight game? TAG and LAG are both aggressive. There's not many spots where a non-aggressive game is going to win lots of money because frankly, it's hard to win money when you're not betting.

If you're saying LAG gets all the money, maybe you're right, but I'd need to see some evidence. I think most low-limit players are playing TAG not because they're inexperienced but because it's the style best suited for those limits.

[biondino]

it's hard to win money when you're not betting.

This is the key. I am very happy to let an aggressive player bet for me - before raising/pushing on 5th street when I have a monster. Without this targeted aggression you'll always miss value.

Personally, I am not convinced that PF stats of 22/19 (say) are optimal. I think limping has a role in perfect poker that the blunt force players don't accept. Problem is I haven't formulated this theory yet

[EzDuzIt]

aggression definitely wins more money. was this meant to be a comparison between tag and lag?

[Vrax]

I think limping has a role in perfect poker that the blunt force players don't accept.

- Loose flop calls & seeing whats up on turn
- Flat calls of PFR's with something and playing some postflop poker
- Check/calling busted rivers in big pots
- Checking flops to late smoothcallers
...

and many more passive plays, that are used by good taggy thinking players to counter blunt aggression. Using those plays doesn't mean someone is passive in general.

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

A non-agressive game, or a tight game?

I was thinking about a non-aggressive game. One where you are mostly calling and folding, as opposed to mostly folding or raising (more of a normal tight game).

TAG and LAG are both aggressive.

I understand and agree.

There's not many spots where a non-aggressive game is going to win lots of money because frankly, it's hard to win money when you're not betting.

I agree again .

I wrote:

However, except in unique situations, i don't think playing a non aggressive game would be as profitable as an aggressive one.

Unique situations like the entire table is betting nearly all flops they raise on, and 2-3 barrell regularly.

If you're saying LAG gets all the money, maybe you're right, but I'd need to see some evidence.

I don't have any personal evidence - i was a spewy LAG before i switched to playing TAG.

[sejje]

Unique situations like the entire table is betting nearly all flops they raise on, and 2-3 barrell regularly.

Aren't we going to win more betting and raising with these guys? These are the types that probably don't like getting donked into.

Basically, I can't see a situation where you're going to benefit from playing passively without a very strong read on a guy that he folds if you bet and he bets if you check.

And against that guy? Yeah, of course you check the goods and bet your air. Or else why even play?

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

You wrote:

Basically, I can't see a situation where you're going to benefit from playing passively without a very strong read on a guy that he folds if you bet and he bets if you check.

I wrote:

Unique situations like the entire table is betting nearly all flops they raise on, and 2-3 barrell regularly.

And against that guy? Yeah, of course you check the goods and bet your air. Or else why even play?

I don't understand why you would incorporate bluffing into a strategy against a super aggressive table/player.

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

Aren't we going to win more betting and raising with these guys? These are the types that probably don't like getting donked into.

Now that is an interesting question. I think it depends on the type of aggressive opponent. If they are just generally super aggressive, regardless of their opponents actions, then i think that you would get more value out of betting/raising your good hands. But, if they are the type to just bet, bet, and bet some more into weakness, then i think that slowplaying hands as weak as a bare overpair (maybe even TP?) would be better than just betting them.

[EzDuzIt]

I think limping has a role in perfect poker that the blunt force players don't accept.

- Loose flop calls & seeing whats up on turn
- Flat calls of PFR's with something and playing some postflop poker
- Check/calling busted rivers in big pots
- Checking flops to late smoothcallers
...

and many more passive plays, that are used by good taggy thinking players to counter blunt aggression. Using those plays doesn't mean someone is passive in general.

agreed. as far as your general game though you will win money by being aggressive, but i agree that doesnt mean always being aggressive.

[djzcko]

I would agree that in general it is best to let the aggressive players dig their own grave. They read checking and calling as weak and start betting more on each street. And then you can raise them on the river and potentially get them allin on a marginal hand where they are pot committed. That said, you need to know who you are up against and play to their weaknesses. Every style of play can be exploited. Understanding your opponents style and exploiting it is the key to winning big. You will never be a big winning player by using a "system" (I am not saying you can't win--just will never win BIG), but a system is a great place to start and build upon.

[bigslikk]

Aggressive = just plain better.

In a aggressive player v passive player battle, one guy is calling the shots and pulling the strings and setting the exact price he wants. The other guy is gettin **** slapped. Be the first guy.

The "big money play" of the passive player is letting aggro think he's ahead when he's not. Aggro runs into passive's monster and bets, bets, bets til showdown when he realizes he SPEEWED big time.

"big money" of aggressive player is winning pot after pot against a passive mouse who folds everything <tptk instantly, or (v. a station, who CALLS everything rather than fold) aggro makes money by value betting everything, even overbetting.

Now who's going to make more money: the guy who is picking up all of the small pots (and the ocassional big one when his aggression appears to be bullshit). or the passive guy who : check-check-checks PRAYING AND BEGGING for the aggressive player to "bet" at the appropriate time when passive has a monster. Why not toss in a few chips yourself?


I' used to play rather passive, too passive for sure, and was dillusional about it for a while. This aggressive player (who happened to be loose) was running me off every pot, i was just WAITING to trap him. The problem with this mindset is:
1) no big pots on your monsters
2) when / if you "spring the trap" it becomes incredibly f'in obvious to anyone with half a brain.


Basically, it boils down to this- what's better, betting constantly (with or without hand) or checking / calling constantly (with or without hand).

Would you rather bet a monster or check it?
Would you rather raise with air or call with it?

Passive poker SUCKS. It can work v. microstakes b/c the players are so stupid (can't read board, overvalue bottom pair, lmao, etc etc.). However aggressive poker (whether tight or loose) is objectively, undeniably better.

It works to get passive v. a LAG who you believe has shlt, in attempts to get him to bleed. However, as a general style of play (aka preference to check or call over anything else) it blows. I LOVE passive players because i set the exact price i want at every single street. Ty chumps. BTW it takes a real idiot LAG to keep betting into a mouse/ rock and not realize that his calls actually represent something.

Play aggressive. Being in the driver's seat in a hand is so advantageous it's unreal.

[moronest]

That is a really thought provoking post.

It offers many solid points and great theory.

The arguments are all solid and it contains the sort of ideas that a strategy can be built with.

Considering less than 5% of players read these forums you other experienced guys should be replying with such well rounded views and comments.

Touche!

[Ragnar4]

I think the kind of player you are talking about: Daniel Negranu
I honestly wish I had the ability to see the flop, make a solid read, and then get away even if I caught good.

Not to say that Negranu isn't an aggressive player. But he's easily the most likely to really get in and mix it up.

If you want to win money being more passive, you have to A) have better reading skills than most. So you can identify the guy who's going to try to run you over, and also be marginally better than him every time you get into it. B) You have to be much better at the math. Mr. Aggressive bets into you, and you're on a draw. You're 20% to win the pot if you catch. You have to be able to not only exercise pot odds, math, but you also have to be capable of flexing implied odds should you catch.

Most people really overextend when taking implied odds into
account. So much so, that many pro's reccommend you don't even try to use implied odds until you have a very firm understanding of the game. Simple fact of the matter is, when you're 20% to win, he bets 2000 into you, you have to know that player well enough to know that you're going to get 8000 MORE out of him. You HAVE to be capable of outplaying him on a passive level.

Aggressive is better, because it's easier. You put them to the test, you test their wherewithal, you make them make a read, trust their read, and get past the self doubt.

I think the only problem with the analysis so far is
1) The assumption an aggressive player is maniac, and thus costing himself money, with his incapability to slow down.
2) The assumption that a sly/crafty player is a losse passive retard that only ever calls. You can't diametrically oppose a Tag with a Lag, and expect the Lag to win.

Vorhaus explains it best: I know you've seen the guy at the table that it just seems like he's in there mixing it up too much, he HAS to be lucky, because there's no way his play = skill. When in all actuality, he's got you twisted. He's playing in such a way, that is totally different from the message he's sending.

Played live poker with a dude like that here a while back. Dressed like a country bumpkin, loud, drinking, total jerk at the table. Most players assumed he was stupid, and approached him as such. I noticed he was only playing decent hands in good position, and calculating odds very well, even while being very distracing and boisterous. Another guy leans in, and says "This jerk lucky, or what, I mean he hasn't played a good hand all night." Sly, Crafty, and TAGG. This is kind of an over exaggeration. But The definition given by all the players is that Tagg is best when compared to Lagg is true. They must re-define the scope of their arguments before we'll get any deeper into the debate.

[moronest]

Bravo,

Now we are getting somewhere. Lets hope these posts keep coming in like these last two.

Thanks, Its helping me see things much clearer.

[Chopper]

i dont want to ruin the fun here, and change the topic back more towards the beginning. please continue like the last couple posts, as i am just chiming in...from the beginning.

i feel that TAG poker is absolutely optimal for the beginner. something to "strive" to become because the beginner is NOT going to be TAGgish naturally...none of us were. we all played too many pots, and too far into the hand. that is how we learned to tighten up, and bet when we had the goods most often.

hence, we (using the term loosely) BECAME TAGs. TAG is the fundamental of ABC poker, and a winning style for most table conditions.

if the table is weak-tight, the TAG takes the money. why? because he is aggressively betting, folding when the passives bet (the only time they have a hand), and mixing in enough bluffs to keep the action coming when the passives catch weaker holdings.

if the table is too loose, the TAG takes the money because he plays better cards than the others.

when the table is loose and aggressive, again, he plays the better cards and strings along 2nd besters.

you get the point.

but, there comes a time when TAG stops working. at least is seems to be no longer the "optimal" style (that just means you are thinking now). it becomes a little predictable. hard to beat, yes, but predictable enough that players see him as "a good player" and start to avoid him. he always seems to "have me beat." and the others simply cant "figure him out." although, ideally, those are GOOD things to hear about yourself...beware. you are "appearing" much better than the others at the table, and now are losing action as a result.

what do you do?

well, with TAG poker serving as the foundation for EVERYTHING YOU DO, you start to loosen it up a bit...to gain action. you throw the big blind into the pot w/o reason...start playing sc's, gappers, etc. really open up your game...for cheap. you dont necessarily raise these hands, you limp them, or hide behind limpers to "see a flop." and when you hit something nice, you play your normal TAG game from there.

you start to "defend your blinds" with 3bets. you start to "steal blinds" by noticing a player is "too tight." you start seeing who the aggros are and betting back at them. and, most importantly, YOU REALIZE WHEN ITS TIME TO SIMPLY CONTROL THE POT'S SIZE (thats the only time you play passively post flop). you clearly see the difference between "building a pot" for the big payoff and "protecting your holding" when its vulnerable.

these concepts only come when you have a true understanding of poker (hint: very few of us ((not me)) have it).

but the basis of all this comes from DEVELOPING a TAG game, and loosening up a bit from there.

just keep playing, posting, and THINKING...you will get there. i promise.

fine print: some faster than others.

cheers.