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.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's not me: I've always won money but never had any illusion that I was doing anything right. I am terrible at seeing what opponents do and thinking "Aha! if he's doing that, I should do this, and I'll make money." Like I say, I don't see where the money comes from.

Well, there's one obvious exception: if someone plays too many hands and pays off too much, then I get it. However, I'm not finding vast numbers of these at the tables these days; I find people who look like that's what they do, but in fact they keep turning over the best hand at the end. Which costs.

Anyway thanks for trying.

Guy.

[kiddo]

"2) Aggressive means you bet and raise a lot."

If u raise a lot postflop without a hand, well, there is ur answer.

"3) Because of (2) your opponents are then free to fold when they have not improved; because of (1) this is not a mistake. You therefore get minimum money in the pot when you are winning."

U are not looking for them to call down w nothing (well, u can hope) but to call down when they got something but something that is worse then u got. Holdem is a game of domination, and u - because of (1) - dominate them.


"4) Your opponents can call, raise, check-raise etc. at will when they hit. You therefore put maximum money in when you are losing."

Nope, u will often have a better hand when noone hit and when both hit because of (1).

Also, the idea that a TAG is always coming in with better hand is wrong. Even a TAG play bad hands around the blinds and we are around the blinds a lot if we play SH holdem.

[cdlarmore]

but i also think a lot of more advanced players can add to winnings through a small increase in stats such as you posted. I think running between a lag and tag, depending on table image is really important. I like to run over a table until they start getting over agg and call happy against me, then slam on the brakes, play tag, and collect, always rotating as the table shifts.

To be most profitable, you cant be predictable, and sooo many players can recoginze you as a tag, and adjust accordingly.

FWIW, my vpip is 33 overall, and im smoking 20/40 right now (over only a 5k hand sample size). But i have lots of success at 5/10, 10/20, and 3/6 with a similar VPIP. I find a tighter VPIP is more successful at 12/,2/4, and 3/6 (maybe around 28). I am not sure if that is because the players dont really catch on to the tightness, or because they have a harder time finding folds, where i think we have a lot more FE at a 10/20 and 20/40 table.
cdl