[ QUOTE ]
I know I already stated that I don't like this book, but any perceived strategy advice is not the blame. I still don't understand how the two excerpts you gave are talking about strategy.
[/ QUOTE ]
you might want to check out this
thread. it discusses the opposite situation: when you are in a game full of rocks and you play only slightly looser.
[ QUOTE ]
Let's consider an extreme scenario, just to make the flaws of this approach very obvious. Suppose you are in your usual game at the local VFW, where all your opponents are granite rocks. Outside of the big blind, nobody calls more than five percent of the time. Bets or raises are rarer than a kind word about "them damn draft dodgers."
As the only exception, you see the flop with your big blind and ten percent of your other hands. You also bet or raise about ten percent of the time.
According to Schoonmaker, you're a maniac. You'll lose lots of money "because poker rewards patience, discipline, and *selective* aggression, while you are impatient, undisciplined, and *promiscuously* aggressive." (P. 137.)
You're probably addicted to the action (p. 141), but if you can change, you should calm down, tighten up, and reduce your aggression. "Nothing will improve your game faster than tightening up." (P. 146.) Being selectively aggressive, though, "is almost as important as tightening up." (P. 146.)
[/ QUOTE ]
as you can see, schoonmaker
is giving strategy advice: calm down, tighten up, reduce your aggression. the problem is its exactly the wrong advice. just because you're looser and more aggressive than the rest of the table, that doesnt necessarily make you a loose-aggressive "maniac".
in this case, you're still an overly tight-passive player. instead of tightening up, you need to loosen up. instead of reducing your aggression, you need to increase it.