The Natheism of the MTT forum (A noob warning)

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why some people are treating this like a particularly new movement. Doyle Brunson, anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Nath shares moer of his HH's and advice and thoughts and such than any other openly LAG player with significant WSOPment placement... Doyle wrote a book and that's it, and it's a very good book, but it doesn't come into threads and yells at people who post "Well I tried to LAG it up so I called peflop with Q7o and then I called the flop bet and checked turn and then folded to a river push...."

That's why (IMO)we have Natheism and not Brunsonism...

[sunrise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will say that I think TAG is a more advantageous style to play in lower buyin MTT's in the early to middle stages, and perhaps in the endgame to some degree, but not as much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I firmly beleive the opposite. (Being LAG is better in low buy ins)

[/ QUOTE ]

You think so? I thought it was more advantageous to play a different style than most of the rest of the table and I find in higher buyin tourney's that people are playing rather tight, which makes pots easier to steal. In the lower buyin ones I find I am a lot more likely to get 5 callers PF when I raise.

[MLG]

sunrise,
higher buy-ins have better players who adjust more quickly. also they pay off less with 2nd best hands, dont let you get to showdown cheaply when you want to, make good thin value bets, and do a host of other things to make your life more miserable. That makes it harder to play lots of hands profitably...which is the basis of what Nath does.


Edit To Make a Further Point:

Sunrise, your statement is kind of a good example of the dangerous kind of thinking that this thread is warning against. Playing LAGgy is NOT NOT NOT about raising a lot and having other people fold. Its about squeezing every drop of EV out of every situation you can..sometimes by enducing folds but often not. In fact, as a LAG you will seldom win big pots by bluffing...you will more often win them with big hands. Until you really understand these ideas you shouldnt be putting yourself into all the tough spots a LAG will.

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will say that I think TAG is a more advantageous style to play in lower buyin MTT's in the early to middle stages, and perhaps in the endgame to some degree, but not as much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I firmly beleive the opposite. (Being LAG is better in low buy ins)

[/ QUOTE ]

You think so? I thought it was more advantageous to play a different style than most of the rest of the table and I find in higher buyin tourney's that people are playing rather tight, which makes pots easier to steal. In the lower buyin ones I find I am a lot more likely to get 5 callers PF when I raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a lot of tournaments in lower buy ins (less than $100) there is a decent chance you are going to be at a table with 9 bad players. If I'm at a table where I have significantly better pre and post flop skills I want to splash around and get involved. In addition, people tend to have more weak tight tendencies at lower buy in bubbles. This is of course table dependant though, and just a generalization.

Post of the Year, Brad.

Congrats, and thanks for posting this.

[uclabruinz]

I like what MLG says, as usual. However, keep in mind the amount of hands you play preflop should kind of be on a fulcrum that rests directly on all the variables involved, but mostly your ability to play postflop. This is because the more hands you play, the more likely you're putting money in the pot preflop without the best of things. The more you do it, the more your postflop ability is going to have to make up for that.

Obviously, nobody is good enough to play against quality competition and play every single hand. And even the worst postflop players are going to have to play at least some fixed number of hands to have any chance whatsoever of winning the tournament. Be brutally honest about your postflop ability (as well as all other factors that I have previously talked about and the ones I haven't mentioned as well) when deciding just how loose preflop you want to be and try to find that sweet spot of balance on the fulcrum.

I am a firm believer that tight/solid play can beat pretty much any level of tournament play online. If you want to beat it significantly, you have to develop flexibility in your game, obviously. Always keep in mind that whatever your currently level of ability, and whatever other variables are interacting with your postflop EV, there is a point where you CAN play too many hands, even if you're (ZOMG!) Nath himself.

[THEOSU]

ucla,

it warms the cockles of my heart to see you saying (typing, whatever) ZOMG!

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why some people are treating this like a particularly new movement. Doyle Brunson, anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Nath shares moer of his HH's and advice and thoughts and such than any other openly LAG player with significant WSOPment placement... Doyle wrote a book and that's it, and it's a very good book, but it doesn't come into threads and yells at people who post "Well I tried to LAG it up so I called peflop with Q7o and then I called the flop bet and checked turn and then folded to a river push...."

That's why (IMO)we have Natheism and not Brunsonism...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not discounting Nath's accomplishments whatsoever, or the fact that he's a fantastic player. Clearly he has a deep understanding of the game.

With all due respect though, the core concepts and applications are very similar to Brunson's style as outlined in SS/SS2, and aren't all that difficult to replicate if you understand the fundamentals. If you have read and re-read the books a number of times, why I'd imagine you could register a gimmick of Texas Dolly with a Brunson avatar, mosey on into any thread like the one you are describing, and give very similar advice to Nath.

Sorry if it seems as if I'm oversimplifying, but I was just trying to point out that the LAG style is certainly not a recent summer break fling or MTT forum fad.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why some people are treating this like a particularly new movement. Doyle Brunson, anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Nath shares moer of his HH's and advice and thoughts and such than any other openly LAG player with significant WSOPment placement... Doyle wrote a book and that's it, and it's a very good book, but it doesn't come into threads and yells at people who post "Well I tried to LAG it up so I called peflop with Q7o and then I called the flop bet and checked turn and then folded to a river push...."

That's why (IMO)we have Natheism and not Brunsonism...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not discounting Nath's accomplishments whatsoever, or the fact that he's a fantastic player. Clearly he has a deep understanding of the game.

With all due respect though, the core concepts and applications are very similar to Brunson's style as outlined in SS/SS2, and aren't all that difficult to replicate if you understand the fundamentals. If you have read and re-read the books a number of times, why I'd imagine you could register a gimmick of Texas Dolly with a Brunson avatar, mosey on into any thread like the one you are describing, and give very similar advice to Nath.

Sorry if it seems as if I'm oversimplifying, but I was just trying to point out that the LAG style is certainly not a recent summer break fling or MTT forum fad.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeh, the LAG approach is given in Brunson's book as well as Lindgren's book. Most of the very top tournament players use it if you have watched TV.

I definately have a TAG reputation, but I use LAG approaches when the situation is right. I think most good TAGs incorporate some LAG techniques. You have to in order to exploit weak/tight tables and players, to make your play unpredictable, and to pressure your opponents. If you are playing against reasonably tight players, plays like early position raises with speculative hands, various forms of bluff preflop reraises, and aggressive postflop play are important. Good TAG play involves a very aggressive approach and an unpredictable style.

I see advice here similar to the misinformation in TJ's book. Like you need a certain hand to raise from a certain position. This is true with shallow money, and you don't want to be violating it all the time. Also, people discuss hands in terms of finding out if they are ahead and winning the hand if they are ahead. A strong player looks to win a hand when he is behind.

What I find in this forum is not too much LAG advice, but too much weak/tight and ABC approach advice.

[NHFunkii]

[ QUOTE ]
ucla,

it warms the cockles of my heart to see you saying (typing, whatever) ZOMG!

[/ QUOTE ]

OSU,

please keep the status of your "cockles" to yourself

nez,

good post