Why TAG is wrong - or - help me sort my brain out

[tmfs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


This whole post is just wrong and it's easy to see why you are "running bad". Sorry to be blunt, but until you change your thinking your results won't change very much.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where does it say that this was "my thinking"? I'll give you a clue: it doesn't, in fact it explicitly says the opposite.

I was hoping for constructive analysis of the sources of profit in limit hold'em. Standard wisdom is to start from a basis of playing strong hands and playing them strongly, and add to your strategy from there. I wondered how this could be criticised and defended. Do you have anything useful to add?

Guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
but at the moment I don't see any source of profit in limit poker

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm unsure what exact limits you play, but in my experience up to 200/400 there is a source for profits. It's just silly to say otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone knows I run bad. I always have and always will. It's mainly to do with my own sucking

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though you have put you're little disclaimer up, I have just heard this statement too much from weak players who are basically breakeven but have the illusion that they are actually winning players and use running bad as an excuse for their results.


But the main reason I disgree with your post is poker is way to complicated to play well by playing one fixed strategy such as "Tag" and "lag". When I think of good players that I have played against, I don't think that they are a "Tag" or a "Lag", they have the characteristics of both and in the end just play good poker. You might be able beat non-thinking players with just a prototypical "tag" strategy, but soon as you face thinking players you better be able to do something more than follow a hand chart and telling yourself to be aggressive postflop.