Re: The Running Game
 

ML4L's post is solid as always. However, one point he missed. Tommy Frazier was a great option QB and NFL bust because he had no passing game. Many of the NL LAGs can really change gears/slow down when necessary. In this way, they are Tommy Frazier with Peyton Mannings arm.

Re: The Running Game
 

Nice post . . . and I have no clever way to parrot back what you just said in slightly different words, nor do I quite know if everything you said is true. But it seems to be.

Re: The Running Game
 

Well, if the defenseman is just standing in one spot waiting for the running back with the ball to run right into him, it's pretty easy to just keep running past him.

But yes, I see what you're saying.

Re: The Running Game
 

Good post Mike.

Re: The Running Game
 

Hallejuh Brother ML!! LAG is a gear like any other, at times appropriate, even the best gear for your particular circumstances, especially short handed or behind several weaker players but there are just as many times when all it will do is drive you into the wall at higher speed. Because of the greater variance inherent in the style, far too many players think a 3-5k run of good cards while playing LAG and the subsequent rewards are a ticket to the promised land but a lot of them run into reality very, very hard when they don't run as well or run into strong players who play well against LAG players. I've seen tons of LAG players in PT with great winrates at 5/10 or above at 5k hands and far fewer at 15k.

Re: The Running Game
 

If you are good enough at LAGing it up, it doesn't really matter. Just look at Micheal Vick.

Re: The Running Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
this guy is killing it, day after day.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean H@@L or some other guy ?

Re: The Running Game
 

I play both 5/10 and 10/20 nl and plo and have a lot of experience with LAGs especially in plo where they can run good for longer periods of time. But I think it is a big mistake in either game to put all LAGs into the same group. Some of them are total maniacs and loose drawers and calling stations, but others are much smarter and know their opponent's tendencies well and try to exploit them. Many of these players raise preflop a lot but don't actually just bet or call any flop and also slowplay a lot. And many of them are very adroit at using their position to call behind with weak draws and bluff the river big when a scare card comes. And just like the Brunson way, all the little and medium size pots they steal give them somewhat of a freeroll to suckout when the pot odds of the particular hand don't warrant it. The very best of these types of players might just actually be better players than many give them credit for, especially in their prime arena, short tables. And the plain fact of the matter is that they are actually playing and always thinking how they can take the pot away on all streets from tighter players. Some of these players are actually good card readers and although calling & raising too loose on early streets with weak hands and draws, are not river calling stations. All of this of course gives them another advantage, and that is that they tend to get paid off better when they actually have a good hand since they do bluff so much.

I agree with the OP that in the longer run most of them won't do so well, and I don't play like that myself. But I also don't sit there like a tree stump waiting to only play pocket pairs and AK like 80% of the so-called TAGs, who are really just weak-tight players. And many of these LAGs also if you notice when and on what tables they play, exercise far better game selection than the weak-tights, by playing more active full tables or in their preferred short-handed arenas. If you think you are a TAG and are sitting on a 10/20 nl table with a $120 pot average then you aren't really. Same for those limit guys who inhabit the 50/100 and 100/200 limit games with pot averages of 3.5-5.5 bbs. And with the LAGs at least the blind cost is not really any concern to them even in a tight game because they steal enough to play virtually free even if not well in particular hands when a pot actually gets played.

Again to be clear I agree with the OP that you can't win long-term when your gear stick is stuck in high. But you will never win much either if it is not occasionally there either because you will get no action. Obviously it is a fine line and easy to overdo with a bad result, but gear changing against regular opponents is still necessary.

Re: The Running Game
 

great post Bluff.

Re: The Running Game
 

Hi Mike,

Good analogy, but I think I disagree. That is, I believe something that you didn't really talk about in your post, so I'm not sure whether you'd disagree. Namely, I believe that the most talented players could play any style, but choose LAG play because it makes the most money against any level of competition, when the stacks are deep.

That is, if you read, maneuver, and adjust better than your opponents, you should put yourself into a position to play many, many hands. This is more true of live play than of online play, because online, the gap in talent is much smaller at the top levels. In live play, this gap is often enormous, even among the top 3% or so of players, because the most talented readers are far better than other players who have merely good reading ability but who are world-class in every other facet. There is almost no substitute for this ability, though a few "non-readers" have been able to nullify it somewhat (Ferguson, Sklansky).

I agree that elementary LAG play can be used to run over a lot of weak games, and that it doesn't work very well against a table full of stable, well-funded opponents with strong fundamentals. To me, though, that is not a very good argument against playing LAG, since those games should be avoided by all but the world champs anyway. Futhermore, in a game like that, your only hope of making the game worthwhile is to lure your opponents away from their solid tendencies, and you don't do that by patiently waiting for strong hands, like the rest of the table is.