Where is the line?

[mojo42]

Miller & Sklansky on pg. 189 of their NL book write "tough players usually won't call three significant bets without being able to beat top pair."

A short number of pages later Miller is describing a 3 barrelled bluff he ran across a weak-tight player.

So if not calling 3 significant bets with a weak made hand is characteristic of both a weak-tight player and a characteristic of a tough player, where is the line?

Is there a tag in their tee shirts next to "Medium, wash with like colors" that says "weak-tight, make in China" or "strong"? I love 2+2 books, but all the authors seem to use weak-tight in a derogatory sense when it fits their argument, even though a tough player would make the same play.

Where is the line? Don't tell me its like Jazz, you know it when you see it. If you are going to banter the terms around when it conveniently fits your discussion, then you better define it.

If weak-tight play is as prevalent as they seem to suggest then they do a great disservice by not addressing the point.

[nichtsnutz]

[ QUOTE ]
So if not calling 3 significant bets with a weak made hand is characteristic of both a weak-tight player and a characteristic of a tough player, where is the line?

[/ QUOTE ]

The tough player will fold his weak hands and stay with his strong hands.

The weak-tight player will fold his weak hands but also fold many of his strong hands.

The calling station will call with his weak and his strong hands.

So basically the idea would be to bluff a lot against the weak-tight, valuebet (and not bluff) a lot against the calling station and table select against the tough player.

If I remember correctly the hand you are referring to is actually a good example because the weak-tight player didn't have a "weak made hand" like you suggest but a set. he folded his set where a tough player probably wouldn't.

[mojo42]

for the board in question, he definitely did have a weak made hand. he had trips with worst kicker (52s). he could have easily been up against A5s or the flush draw that came in.

[mojo42]

er sorry, ed does define weak-tight (in NL) pretty well on another page. missed that the first time.

[tessarji]

[ QUOTE ]
"tough players usually won't call three significant bets without being able to beat top pair."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
A short number of pages later Miller is describing a 3 barrelled bluff he ran across a weak-tight player with trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I have to draw a diagram?

[iveyleague24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"tough players usually won't call three significant bets without being able to beat top pair."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
A short number of pages later Miller is describing a 3 barrelled bluff he ran across a weak-tight player with trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I have to draw a diagram?

[/ QUOTE ]

nice

[Bang584]

Let's say both players flop top pair, so-so kicker. Their opponent fires three barrels.

Weak-tight players fold because they don't think their hand is worth most/all of their stack. It doesn't matter if you're bluffing, they're going to wait and catch you when they flop the nuts 1000's of hands later.

Tough players usually fold because their opponents usually don't fire enough 3-barrel bluffs to make calling profitable. If their oppponents 3-barrelled too often, a tough player would be capable of calling down, knowing that they'll be ahead often enough to make doing so +EV.