The Running Game
 

So, I was sitting around watching the Clemson/Texas A&M football game. I love college football, and part of what I love is the running game. I like watching teams that run the ball fifty times a game, teams that run the triple option, and teams whose quarterback will run for 100 yards.

You won't find any of those things in the NFL. One of the major reasons is because an offense based entirely around the running game couldn't win in the NFL. A strong running game stems from dominating the other team's line. In the NFL, the talent level is too even amongst teams for that to happen. Another thing that the running game (specifically, the option play) relies upon is mistakes. For the option to work, you need people to blow assignments, miss tackles, take bad angles, and make other fundamental mistakes. In the NFL, the players are too well-coached, too skilled, and too fundamentally sound to make the mistakes that allow the option to thrive.

What does this have to do with poker? Loose-aggressive play in no-limit is like the running game in football. It works best when your opponents are no good. It works when your opponents aren't fundamentally sound, when they make the same mistakes over and over, and when they are so weak and helpless that they know exactly what you're doing and still can't stop it.

There's been an aura surrounding loose-aggressive play on this forum as of late. Somehow, people have come to believe that it is the proper way to play poker, the panacea for average play. Don't get me wrong; it has its place in poker, just as the option play has its place in football. But, what everyone needs to understand that the strength of loose-aggressive play lies in your opponents' weaknesses.

Some people like to railbird the big games. When they do so, they get to watch a number of loose-aggressive players do pretty well for themselves. When they see these players, they view them as poker experts, poker superstars. When I watch these players, I see Tommie Frazier. For those who haven't heard of him, Tommie Frazier was a quarterback who led Nebraska to back-to-back national titles. He broke countless records and is one of the best college quarterbacks to ever play. He ran the option. And, he never played a single down in the NFL. The main reason being: his skills were one-dimensional. So, as good as he was in college, he wasn't a viable player at the highest level.

If Tommie Frazier were allowed to play college football as long as he wanted to, he'd probably still be playing and winning today. Unfortunately, you can't exercise game selection in football. In poker, however, you can figure out what you're good at and what works in a certain type of game. Then, you can play only in games that suit your strengths. You can play college football forever. And, you can get rich doing so...

But, make no mistake. Don't confuse loose-aggressive play for a dominant strategy. Because, if you play more hands than your opponents and play them too aggressively, you will lose if your opponents are any good. And, don't confuse every loose-aggressive winning player for an expert. Some might be experts who wisely adjust to game conditions. But, many others don't understand poker; they are merely fortunate that they play against opponents who can't stop their running game.

If such players were to ever find themselves in the NFL, they would be in for a rude awakening. They would keep running the ball, because that's all they know how to do. But, they would soon find that the running game doesn't work against strong competition.

To succeed in the NFL and in poker, you need a balanced attack.

ML4L

Re: The Running Game
 

I hear what you're saying.

I also know that the biggest consistent winner in the 10-20 game I play at is a total LAG. Comes in with a raise with any two suited, any two connected, any two paint, any position. Granted, it's not the biggest game out there, but this guy is killing it, day after day.

I guess we all don't have our anti-LAG weapons down.

What would you say they are, besides the preflop reraise?

Re: The Running Game
 

Our advantages: Position, Predictability, and Passiveness.

-JP

Re: The Running Game
 

Good post, best players knows when to use the running game, and the passing game to his advantage as do the best teams...

Re: The Running Game
 

great post. people must change gears based on how the game is being played. simply being lag can be a disaster, as i have experienced.

Re: The Running Game
 

Nice post.

Even good opponents don't know what to do when you're playbook is big enough, and you pick your plays based on what you know about the D.

Re: The Running Game
 

Cool post. A good take on what is suddenly a hot topic and a nice analogy.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't confuse loose-aggressive play for a dominant strategy. Because, if you play more hands than your opponents and play them too aggressively, you will lose if your opponents are any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say that LAG play is not a dominant strategy, I assume your implication is that there is no single dominant strategy. With that I agree. But if you are suggesting that there is a specific strategy that is superior...

The fact is that a loose aggressive strategy can be highly effective at any level. And there are no simple counter-strategies, because a good LAG player is not actually set in a specific mode of play. I would say that "loose-aggressive" is primarily an image. Just because a player has been labeled a "LAG" doesn't mean he isn't adaptable. Versatility and the ability to adapt to changing conditions are necessary for any genuinely good player.

I disagree with the thought that "any good" player can easily overcome a LAG strategy, and with the implication that this type of strategy has no place in the NFL/big games. I have seen lots of players who consider themselves "good," players who have built bankrolls playing nl holdem, players who are very used to winning, suddenly start losing and losing a lot when faced w/ certain LAG strategies in certain metagames and all they usually do is comment on how bad the players beating them are. I'd even go so far as to say that the VAST majority of WINNING nl partypoker players would have a real tough time in some major LAG games. I mean why arent the partypoker rocks lining up to play Mahatma? Because he'd own them.

Overall I agree with most of what you say and certainly with the spirit of the post, but I think it's important to note that the term LAG is largely undefined. In fact I'd say the only thing that all the good LAG players have in common is that they are loose preflop. And if you really think that every player who is "any good" can stop a LAG in his tracks, well, then I think you're underestimating the power of the dark side.

Re: The Running Game
 

Great post as always.

Re: The Running Game
 

I come onto 2+2 trying to escape my misery....I see ML has posted and figure it will be good so it's the first one i open.....And this is the first sentance i read:

[ QUOTE ]
So, I was sitting around watching the Clemson/Texas A&M football game

[/ QUOTE ]

I wanted to kill myself....Thanks bud!

Re: The Running Game
 

?

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.

Re: The Running Game
 

Loose aggressive players are harder to play against.

-Jason

Re: The Running Game
 

I'm perfectly happy not aspiring to LAG play myself--eg, in 6 handed limit games while many posters have been yearning to get their vpip over 30%, or even higher, I'm perfectly satisfied keeping mine around the underside of 25%.

that said, Barry Greenstein rates "looseness" as a positive attribute on his website. and in case you might think maybe he means a good amount of "looseness" to be miminal looseness (like I did), read his descriptions of tight players (with low "looseness") as being predictable and outplayed.

but then I have no real desire to find a way to play against skilled, thinking, dangerous, smart players. I'll always be happy playing tight, against fish.

Re: The Running Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm perfectly happy not aspiring to LAG play myself--eg, in 6 handed limit games while many posters have been yearning to get their vpip over 30%, or even higher, I'm perfectly satisfied keeping mine around the underside of 25%.

that said, Barry Greenstein rates "looseness" as a positive attribute on his website. and in case you might think maybe he means a good amount of "looseness" to be miminal looseness (like I did), read his descriptions of tight players (with low "looseness") as being predictable and outplayed.

but then I have no real desire to find a way to play against skilled, thinking, dangerous, smart players. I'll always be happy playing tight, against fish.

[/ QUOTE ]He worships Stu Ungar with his rated looseness and agressiveness 9 and 9 respectively. For tournaments, that is.

Re: The Running Game
 

One of the best posts I've ever read about poker, not just NL. I think it's equal too or maybe even better than Ray Zee's "Stages of a Poker Player". And not just because I remember Tommy Frazier and love college/pro football. Great post.

Re: The Running Game
 

Thanks for the post ML4L.

It's all about the "situation".

Ed S.

Re: The Running Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the post ML4L.

It's all about the "situation".

Ed S.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The Running Game
 

bump, because this is awesome and i just saw it.

Re: The Running Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
One of the best posts I've ever read about poker, not just NL. I think it's equal too or maybe even better than Ray Zee's "Stages of a Poker Player". And not just because I remember Tommy Frazier and love college/pro football. Great post.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey i remember reading this article ages ago.
anyone got a link pls?

Re: The Running Game
 

http://www.twoplustwo.com/zee2.html
The Different Stages in a Player's Life

Re: The Running Game
 

I agree with what you are saying but it doesnt mean the best people with that stategy would bet destroyed at the highest level.
Vick is a running QB who does well in the NFL. He does what matters in both poker and the NFL, which is to win. He may not be the biggest winner, but he wins more than the average QB.
A very good LAG doesnt have to be the biggest winner in the biggest game, because on the highest level the money is so large that if you are just good enough to win a solid amount, like Vick, then you can still do well for yourself-see...... Vick's 100 million dollar contract

Re: The Running Game
 

I find that when a college QB is running a hard count, and the defense doesnt bite, the QB focuses less on the count and more on the idea of the play itself, usually resulting in an audible. Then when he finally gets the right audible and the play clock is at 1 second, there is no way the middle LB can have any idea whats about to hit the defense, so he can't adjust with an appropriate line shift etc. What I'm getting at is that it is -EV to check-call down with AK against a 30/20/3 if you can't run a 4.4 40.


Thats all I'm sayin...

Re: The Running Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find that when a college QB is running a hard count, and the defense doesnt bite, the QB focuses less on the count and more on the idea of the play itself, usually resulting in an audible. Then when he finally gets the right audible and the play clock is at 1 second, there is no way the middle LB can have any idea whats about to hit the defense, so he can't adjust with an appropriate line shift etc. What I'm getting at is that it is -EV to check-call down with AK against a 30/20/3 if you can't run a 4.4 40.


Thats all I'm sayin...

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Re: The Running Game
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The Running Game
 

Interesting original post, but I disagree about its application to higher limits. I think at some point playing very good aggressive players, playing LAG is pretty much necessary to keep your range wide enough that they can't exploit you. Or in game theory terms, I suspect that the better the players, the more the equilibrium strategy is going to be very loose and aggressive. This may be why, for example, in the big PLO games, almost all of the big winners play a LAG style. Even a tighter player like sbrugby, who plays like 32/20 is pretty LAG compared to the regulars at the lower stake games.

In fact, I may not be willing to go out on this limb, but it may be the case that the analogy is good but backwards. Tight-aggressive play may be the "running game" strategy that depends on opponents overplaying their hands and not adjusting to your more narrow ranges.

Re: The Running Game
 

"To succeed in the NFL and in poker, you need a balanced attack. "

ML4L

Re: The Running Game
 

This whole thread is sweet. Thanks to Michael Bolton for the bump after 1.5 years.

Re: The Running Game
 

Great post

LAG can be as mechanical as TAG in the wrong hands or at the the wrong time.