Would Ultra-Tight be right? NL HE

[jonny quest]

Specifically, if one were to only play pocket-pairs and see the flop, then bet (with over-pair or set only) and release most other scenarios when encountering aggression...would this be a winning strategy (at certain stakes perhaps?)

My question is deliberately vague in terms of position, stack sizes, number of players in the pot, etc. but I wanted to focus on a very specific theory involving very strict starting hand requirements...and I know there are many E/V geniuses and game theoreticians here who could shed some light. Thanks

[GiantBuddha]

There's probably some games you can beat this way, but it's far from optimal. Maybe I'll try just playing pairs (and AK?) over 10,000 hands in low limit. Interesting enough experiment.

[Sean Fraley]

This is profitable s long, and only as long, as you are up against opponents who pay little attention to how often you play a hand, and how often you bet. I think that the only games you would be able to do a reasonable job with this would be in full-ring at tables with a large number of multitablers who are not using a HUD.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, if one were to only play pocket-pairs and see the flop, then bet (with over-pair or set only) and release most other scenarios when encountering aggression...would this be a winning strategy (at certain stakes perhaps?)

My question is deliberately vague in terms of position, stack sizes, number of players in the pot, etc. but I wanted to focus on a very specific theory involving very strict starting hand requirements...and I know there are many E/V geniuses and game theoreticians here who could shed some light. Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

Under normal (and even the vast majority of abnormal) circumstances, no. The blinds will eat you up, and your strategy will be transparent to your opponents so you will never get any action. Since the rate that overpairs & sets appear is insufficient to pay for the blinds if you don't get action, you will slowly bleed to death.

Your strategy would work is if your opponents are 100% incapable of performing any sort of frequency analysis on your play. Even most dumb people aren't THAT dumb, however. A very tight strategy somewhat like what you propose (althoug it would include AKs & possibly AQs and exclude small-med pocket pairs) IS appropriate for defeating certain types of super-stupid-agressive games where your opponents are in effect posting numerous additional giant blinds by entering at the raise and re-raise level with nothing, and as a result you can play very few hands and still come out ahead. But it sounds like you're more interested in the general case than in one very specific instance.

[jonny quest]

[ QUOTE ]
[Since the rate that overpairs & sets appear is insufficient to pay for the blinds if you don't get action, you will slowly bleed to death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point, well-stated.

I calculated these ideal conditions occuring less than 1% of the time. That said I have a friend who swears by this strategy in large MTT's while his stack remains at least 20 x blinds.

I have never seen anyone play so tight, especially in a ring game....and I think your explanation sums it up. ty

[GiantBuddha]

I used to play in a $5/10 NL game with $1,000 min buy-in and several people buying in for $10,000. People would straddle, and re-straddle, and post $100 sleepers. This was back during the internet boom, and there were some really wealthy gamblers in the game. I played absurdly tight, pretty much just pocket pairs and AK, maybe AQs. It was the first NL game I'd played in, and the only books out were SuperSystem and TJ's book. TJ basically tells you to play Aces, Kings, and sometimes Queens. Not very helpful.

To make a long story short (too late) I crushed the game four or five times and was asked not to play anymore, unless the game was short and needed more people. I was also asked not to play in the $3/6 game at this club, which was pretty hysterical. Yeah, I used to play better than I do now.

Point being, if conditions are perfect, the strategy might work, but still might not be a good idea.

[vozzie]

In Sng's I tend to play very tight in the first 3 levels or so when the blinds are still small. Most of the time I can stay just above average stack. After that you have too loosen up. Overall I believe switching gears is very important otherwise you are an open book to even the worst players

[smbruin22]

some games i've played, there was usually a raise and some callers by the time it got to me in late or blinds. so that game is perfectly for playing really tight.

and then alot of times in B&M, people won't notice you're so tight (table turnover) and even if they notice they can't resist...

if you are going to play ultra-tight, i would look to limp early and then hopefully reraise. if you raise early, you often kill your action.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
I used to play in a $5/10 NL game with $1,000 min buy-in and several people buying in for $10,000. People would straddle, and re-straddle, and post $100 sleepers. This was back during the internet boom, and there were some really wealthy gamblers in the game. I played absurdly tight, pretty much just pocket pairs and AK, maybe AQs. It was the first NL game I'd played in, and the only books out were SuperSystem and TJ's book. TJ basically tells you to play Aces, Kings, and sometimes Queens. Not very helpful.

To make a long story short (too late) I crushed the game four or five times and was asked not to play anymore, unless the game was short and needed more people. I was also asked not to play in the $3/6 game at this club, which was pretty hysterical. Yeah, I used to play better than I do now.

Point being, if conditions are perfect, the strategy might work, but still might not be a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely the hyper-aggressive scenario I was referring to. Notice that the presence of extra blinds (straddles, sleepers, whatever) makes this possible. If you were just attacking the official $15 of blinds, you would have to adopt a more balanced strategy.