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

[vmacosta]

If TAG refers to preflop then I'm pretty sure its best way to beat 10/20ish online while multitabling (don't know about higher cuz I never win higher). If TAG refers to postflop then I'm pretty sure that's awful (bc postflop is so complex that sticking to any one strategy sucks).

But you already knew that, so just keep playing short sessions until you run better!

[Buffsta8]

Generally TAGs lose because the less imaginative worse hand readers try and cling to a pre flop guide that best helps them to overcome the deficiencies of their overall play. There are a lot of good TAGs though that hand read well and use their tighter image to pull off sound bluffs/steals against the right opponents and a lot of these are the hardest players around to play against. The easiest players to play against are the Bad TAGS tho b/c observant opponents three bet them more liberally and often no exactly where they stand in the hand postflop.

[disjunction]

One point before addressing your theory: unless a TAG loses more than the rake, she is not being exploited, she simply isn't winning enough to beat the rake. LAG just pays more rake.

The primary weakness is in your third point, which sounds good until you put numbers on it. They are not free to fold if they don't hit. In the general case, on the flop, if you don't improve and they don't improve they have 6 outs or 25% equity. Add to this that if the LAGs ever fold when they are ahead, they have big problems.

On your fourth point, when they hit you will have outs. They also have no idea where they are if they hit something small. Furthermore, when they hit and you hit, they will lose a lot.

[tmfs]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="#666666">Disclaimer: I don't really believe the following, but at the moment I don't see any source of profit in limit poker. </font>

Hello. Everyone knows I run bad. I always have and always will. It's mainly to do with my own sucking. However, it seems to me that...

A tight aggressive style is fatally flawed.

1) Tight means your starting cards are most often superior to your opponents' cards.

2) Aggressive means you bet and raise a lot.

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.

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

(3) and (4) mean postflop disaster, which is in no way compensated for by your relatively small preflop edge.

Well, that's the way it feels when I look back over my hands. Over and over I win the blinds preflop or take the pot on the flop when I have something; and get taken for a multiple bet ride on multiple streets when I am second best.

Discuss.

Guy.

[/ 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.

[baronzeus]

the key to poker is to get more from your opponents when you are ahead than they get from you when you are behind. this can be done in a variety of ways: value betting, playing tightly (ie folding second best hands), hand reading and making correct plays (bluffing etc).

ultimately the TAG will win in almost all of the above categories, especially the 1st and 2nd.

[marching_on_together]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that not the case for everyone?


[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is clearly no. I remember reading a stats post proably over a year ago from a well respected poster who now plays reasonably high limits, the post detailed his career stats. It showed that the player had flown through the mid limits only playing ~20k hands at 5/10 and 10/20 and winning 2-3 BB per 100. Is that player a good player now, highly likely, was he a good player then possibly did he run good at that time all most certainly. Subsequently that player has had his own well documented downswing. However that initial good run helped build a bankroll and gave him confidence to draw upon when the bad times hit. A 100k hands of losing poker or 200k near breakeven is much harder to take mentaly (and to recover your bankroll) when it is not preceeded by an initial good or even average run. It 's impossible for any of us to know if you suck at poker but it does sound highly likely you have run bad for an extended period. Unfortunatly I suspect there is not much you can do that you are not already doing to improve the situation.

[baronzeus]

also, i feel that a lot of previously good TAGs make a transition to LAG and get eaten alive by regulars. the transition from TAG to LAG (ie vpip 27/20 to vpip 33/24) is more than just playing more hands. it involves a significant change in playing style/philosophy. previously winning players can become losers just by adding these hands, i think.

[Guy McSucker]

[ 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.

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Tight means your starting cards are most often superior to your opponents' cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tight also applies to post-flop. It means not sticking with 2nd best and worse hands. This discipline can breakdown when you are running bad. It's easy to dump overcards when you're hitting your share of flops. When not hitting, you may find yourself sticking with these hands and others when you should clearly be folding.

Caveat: there are, of course, situations where continuing with OCs is correct. Making good decisions with these weak draws is a hallmark, IMO, of TAG post-flop play.

"When I get called on the river, I lose." This suggests your post-flop play may be leaking a bit. Running bad sucks. I paired the flop &gt;20% from October through January (s/b 32%). It is hard to raise AQo over and over again and fold the flop most of the time. Gets to the point where you don't want to see that bitch.

Good luck

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are free to fold but they are physically incapable of it. If you bet and they fold, it is because they had four high.

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

It is true that they have options, but your ability to read their hands based upon which of these options they choose will allow you to minimize the damage by folding, taking free cards, etc--not maximize it. This analysis is probably only true in the specific circumstance where you have a strong hand and they just happen to have a stronger one.

[ QUOTE ]

Well, that's the way it feels when I look back over my hands. Over and over I win the blinds preflop or take the pot on the flop when I have something; and get taken for a multiple bet ride on multiple streets when I am second best.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the definition of running bad. Better luck!

Cartman