to all the top dogs here(Boz,,etc..),about a quote from mason!

[Montrealcorp]

im asking here because its the perfect limit to apply it!
i red about this quote a couples of time and couldnt figure out if it was that much of a good thing or even a necessity to become great?

what i met is,u think u learn more this way then by playing tight as everyone suggest?

here is the quote from mason malmuth(wich a lot of u know about it im sure) from poker essay p.123:

"On the other hand ,if your goal is to become great,playing loose will more likely get you there,assuming you dont go broke in the attempt."

is it a true fact?
but cost a lot of money (making it not worthwhile since it can cost tooo much for what it will benefit you ,meaning u will learn almost nothing like this anyway and if u add the cost to your bankroll it will suffer,it is not a good bargain.

Or,since its micro limit,give it a shot and learn a great deal from playing loose since it wont cost u much(taking a relative small loss on your bankroll at those limit) compared to what u can learn?
(like mason says:after much experience on tough spot, u will recognize them more often and be able to make better decision for the futur when they happens again.

PS: he didnt sayed it in those particular words but u get the feeling on what he was saying right?))


if it happens again but on higher stakes,then i saved money there?(since facing tough decision happens playing tight or loose anyway?)


so,if i got some money to spare(and start back at .05/.1) and want to learn something from playing loose,can it be a good investement for the futur?
Or its just a cost of money, since at those level,playing loose ,u wont learn much anyway from playing with them ?

maybe playing loose,like mason "advocate" to become really good,is only vs good thinking opposition and not vs total "newbie" wich its full at .05/.1?

well ty for answering!

btw,this is not an attempt to try finding a reason to play more hands......really its not,i make money by playing tight and its good enough,i just want to move up eventually at a much higher stakes and wonder if playing loose at very low level could help improve my game like mason is suggesting?

quote from behind the book:
"The book is designed to make the reader do a great deal of thinking....very few readers will agree with everything the text offers,but the information provided should help most pepole become better players."

maybe this subject i brought might be implement in his last quote?

i just wonder if the good guys(BOZ,MrWookie,BigBadbbabar,etc.),and anyone else fo course, around here did play looose in moments and learned a great deal from it when they did(beside playing loose = large increase of % to loose money)

so ty(please dont shoot for trying to bring this "stupid" discussion),i just dunno what to think of it (about mason quote).....ty

[Smurph64]

I followed the advice of Mason and others by playing loose and aggreesive for a period of time. I think it helps some players and hurts others.

It depends on your natural tendencies. Being a nit by nature, opening up wide and taking shots was the best way for me to learn the value of betting vs calling.

But you take a lot of hits. I went up real quick and went down fast. I bailed out twice and now on my third run up and I am not sure if doing the wild and woolly training I did was a good thing or not yet.

I developed a lot of results oriented conditioning which I am deprogramming myself with now and its a lot of work fixing looseness.

On the other hand, I know that if I stayed in my true personality mode while playing poker that it would have been equally hard to learn concepts, or rather attempt to learn concepts that are more advanced at all.

For instance, bet/fold on the river. So I suggest for players BEFORE they plan a training run through the cheap seats getting all wild and hairy that they have a game plan and a purpose in mind first.

Going at it rough shot without knowing why and how and where and when to play in certain ways against certain players is a recipe for disaster.

Make sure you inventory your play and can substantiate your actions in a post mortem.

I know I had a lot of post mortem discussions with Aaron and Wookiee and Miles ( though I never understood what the hell he was saying until I came back from hiatus) and they really explained things in such a way that I was able to piece together a better understanding of the complex principles of ABC poker.

Sometimes living is the best way of learning but knowing why and how to make mistakes doesn't mean you absolutely have to make them to learn.

[MrWookie]

Mason didn't mean to play so loose that you're playing -EV poker. If you play that loose, you're destined for BUSTO no matter the stakes. I interpret his quote as saying "Play every hand you can so long as it's not -EV to do so." People who play the marginal hands are more likely to become good at playing in marginal situations by having more practice at figuring them out. If you consistently pass the slim opportunities up, you're giving up EV, and you're probably reducing variance, but you're not going to get better at poker as quickly as someone who's constantly struggling through slim spots.

[Xylocain]

I'm not very good or experienced at poker, but I choose to play a bit looser ~20-22% vpip (as opposed to a nutpeddling 15) partly because I think it will make me better faster and partly because given how the online games are nowdays there is more to be gained from good post flop play than tight pre-flop play. FWIW I think the better players are scewed towards LAG rather than TAG and playing a good LAG is much much harder.

I think Masons quote has some merit.

just my 2.

[Smurph64]

I agree with what Wookiee says here but -ev is hard to describe to someone when they are killing it doing it the wrong way, therefore getting programmed with results oriented thinking.

The classic example I remember you tagging me out of was playing Game theory by raising whenever I had the 8 spades in my hand.

I certainly learned about game theory a lot more effectively by those discussions we had afterward where you dissected the concept misconception on my part.

I don't think I would have learned it just by reading about it.

Some marginal hands are -ev in some situations and positive ev in others. By playing them with understanding, like for example Axo vs Axs, and afterwards going over the thinking behind the play, then you have the ability to help yourself in future situations.

But if you play Axo and go by your results only, you may come to seriously damaged conclusions.

[Point Blank]

i go play micro games off and on (when I've hit my 'marks' for my currently limit) ... when I do I generally play about 40-50% and play the flop and whatever

playing loose (ie weak hands) - puts you into situations that require more 'judgement' ... which in turn requires you to think more about what is 'happening' in the game (and the conditions that surround it)

compare this to playing AA ... you don't really need to make many decision ...

the thing is ... you have to 'know' what it is you want to 'learn' by playing like this ... just playing loose because you think you'll learn 'something' is a bad approach

if you want to "learn" from playing loose ... try playing heads-up (take advantage and participate in the next HULA tournament ... you'll be playing against players who are actually playing the 'game')

[Landonfan]

Why don't you just play 6max?

[Montrealcorp]

"Play every hand you can so long as it's not -EV to do so"

well im not so sure,since he ws specifying,playing any pocket pair vs any player in any and versus any position,meaning cold calling a tight player EP with pocket 4 on the button is probably -ev?

as for :Why don't you just play 6max?
well then everyone is playing loose and i dont think mason met that?

rather met play loose vs anykind of player(tight and loose) and learn when to fold and when not too?

unless im wrong?

maybe is saying play Q9o,A8o,any offsuit connector(ie: T9 with only 1 limper or limp first with it in late position?)etc when there is no raise preflop and playing lot of JTs,QTs,K9s,AXs,any suited connncetor in any positon in raised pot or not and of course any pocket pair and see what see what happens ?

[kerowo]

Poker is entirely situational. The more times you see certain situations the better you are going to be at them. If you play more hands you will see more situations in a given amount of time and have to make those decisions.

That being said, when you play more marginal hands in awkward situations you will have to make harder decisions and often regardless of the decision you will lose money so your variance is going to increase which will tend to make your losses higher.

Nothing for nothing.

[bozlax]

Did somebody say my name? Wha? Whoa, there it is again! Get outta town! And there isn't an epithet next to it!

I think the truth of the matter falls somewhere between PB and Wook. Mason wants you to play looser than is necessarily (automatically?) +EV, limits aside, and learning to play in these marginal or even negative situations is where you find the little slivers of value that will make you a successful player against (nearly?) equally-skilled opponents.

Here's a related thought I had the other day during an IM convo with somebody: nano-limit games play like mid-limit games; the difference is that the LAGtard playing across the table from you doesn't know WHY he's doing it, and he's not picking his spots. Further, when he opens in EP with 84o, and takes the pot from the bb with a c-bet on a missed flop, the bb folded for the same reason (i.e. he believed what the guy was, in the nano game unconsciously, repping), but he didn't apply the same critical thinking to the situation (i.e. "he's still betting, he must have something better than I do" vs. "I know this player, he doesn't get out of line, so I'm the odds aren't right to look him up only getting 4.5:2.5 from the pot on a calldown"). Thoughts?