Can LAGs make more money?

While playing for a while at 2nl and reviewing my hands, I see that I may not be getting as much value as I should with my premium hands, often because my raises are folded to and rarely called. When called and I get bet into with a low flop with no pairs, I also fold which loses value and I fold my hands unless I get a premium hand. Now this is a good basic strategy that has won me money but I do see that LAGs seem to make more money as their stacks always seem to get bigger while mine shrinks. Sure, this could just be me focusing on lucky LAGs and I have seen LAGs lose their massive stack with stupid plays but I find that their hands get more action than mine, possibly because I nit up much more than they do.

My VP$IP is probably around 20% since I throw away sc and marginal hands like KT, KQ, KJ, QJ, QT, or JTs when out of position or if there is a reraise in front of me. Maybe I my opponents never get a hand when I do but when I raise, I do see people simply fold to my raise and I only win the blinds w/ AQo. I was wondering if I should incorporate more hands and widen my range or should I just grind it out and not widen my range until higher stakes? If so, at what levels?

Good LAGs make a lot more. Bad LAGs will usually end up giving it back.

It's a fine line, but generally the good LAGs only play loose/fast for small bets and on the earlier streets. In big pots and on the turn/river they play much more TAG. The bad LAGs continue to play too loose in big pots.

Good LAGs make more money off their big hands. Especially against opponents who don't realize that these LAG players will "have it" when all the money goes in.

TAG is safer and easier when you are starting out, LAG requires better post-flop skills and the ability to lay hands down.

Don't confuse LAGs with maniacs. I'm pretty sure there are no LAGs at 2NL.

I occasionally switch my play up and try to play, opening with about 50% of hands but you really do find yourself in some tricky spots post-flop and whilst you do win a lot of pots its so hard not to lose a big pot and hand all your profits back.

He then goes on to say roughly what Kornholio said in his earlier post.

As an example:

Hero raises, gets 3bet by a player, who then shows down 97 suited. Hero labels this player as a maniac.

A few orbits later Hero raises preflop with JJ. "Maniac" reraises. Hero 4bets. "Maniac" tanks, then shoves. Hero often makes a hero call here, only to be shown QQ+/AK. He curses his luck, reloads and players even looser trying to "out maniac the maniac".

Sorry, my bad for not quoting but I was refering to the OP and the fact that 2NL was the stake in question. KoRnholio is spot on obviously. Actually I understood the difference watching SS videos.

20% is not nit, but you say "probably", so you donīt really know?. Also Vpip is less important when people is folding (unless you play like <10%), you need to see your PFR, if your vpip is really 20% but you raise only 5% of course people fold every time you raise, if you are 10/8 sure they will fold most of the time.

But unless you actually know your numbers not sure how wide you could make the change?.

If you are talking about 6 max then forget i post.

Nothing beats trying to out manic a maniac though

If by maniacs mean 35/30 or higher and with lag mean 20/18 to 28/26 then i disagree, there is abunch of both in 2nl.

OP, if you're struggling to get value at 2nl, it is definitely not because you're not playing LAG, i guess a lag style works best where people fold when they get scared, and generally people dont like folding a lot at 2nl. Definitely dont switch to being a lag if you're not crushing 2nl as a tight player, it really isn't neccesary and will just get you into too many tough spots for now. I havent came across 1 good lag at 25nl yet in like 50k hands, is there a level where good lags come into play a lot more often? like 100? 200nl?

I think it's quite difficult to id a LAG by their VPIP/PFR but skill wise... I seriously doubt there's a bunch of them. As I see it and this is my personal opinion, in 2NL we are all wanabes. TAG wanabes, LAG wanabes, nits that wanabe proper grinding nits.

How many excelent players are there in 2NL? Maybe I'm either too negative about 2NL or too romantic about what a TAG or a LAG is but I don't think we (yeah I'm part of the fish ) have the skill to be either of those.

When your skill increases (when you can accurately put people on ranges and get away with thinner valuebets and know when to bet-fold good hands), you can play a wider range of hands profitably. This increases your profits on already profitable hands because people give you less credit for a hand when you actually have one.

That doesn't mean it's all profit profit profit; you do run into more marginal spots and tough decisions and it increases your variance by simply playing more big pots with hands that have good equity but aren't likely to be ahead.

There's a lot more to being a successful player than just being aggressive, although TBH blind aggression will probably work at a lot of 2 NL tables if you can back down when someone shows up with the nuts. Trying to mimic Tom Dwan 3-betting 32o and triple barreling air out of position isn't going to get you very far if you don't understand why he does it or when. Dwan himself is actually probably closer to GTO (game-theory optimal) than any other high-stakes player in the world outside of the true HU specialists.

I don't really know what the exact stats for a "LAG" player are but when I play 4 tables or less of full ring, which happens very rarely, only when making a video, I pretty much always have 6max stats, like 22/19. And I seem to kill it every time. I think if you already have a decent edge over the game then adding some more hands will only help your winrate.

But if we are talking about actual profit or money made I think the TAG approach is better. TAG's can play more tables and thus more hands and more rakeback. I don't think the higher winrate of a LAG player is enough to make up for this.

My VP$IP is 20.92 and my PRF is 15.8 in 2nl FR. I dont go into pots with marginal hands like 32s or even 68s and rarely play sc unless in late position. The hands I play I pretty much always raise unless im in BB and it is limp/folded to me. I feel though that since I only play premium hands (77+, AT+, KQ, KJ and KT late only, 78s and 89s only if I feel like it). I might be losing value and not maximize value from not playing more sc or cards like QTs except in late position.

Math doesn't seem to add up. Let's say you can either play 45 hands per hour at 4 tables = 180 hands or play 6 tables of 30 hands per hour = 180 hands?

I realize there's rakeback but you're also getting more hands in with fewer tables which leads to better reads.

BTW if your style works for you, obviously go with it. No reason to mess with success especially at low stakes.

I guess I shouldnt be complaining too much since I am winning at 2nl although I dont know if im just on a heater or if im playing well. I really dont get the chance to stack someone unless that person is a complete fish that shoves all in with 2nd pair weak kicker and I have top pair or if I suck out on them by the river. I just sounds like reading from other threads on this site that good players have no problems stacking others and often stack one or two people at least per table before leaving.

Sounds like you need to work on your betsizing too if you're not stacking other people, building pots with the best hand and valuebetting.

I bet my premiums about 4xBB or 5xBB and bet around 3/4 to pot. Should I overbet the pot?

If you are 100bb's deep:
open for 5BB, 1 caller not from blinds and pot = 11.5BB's
Cbet flop for 9bb's and called, pot = 29.5bb's
Bet turn for 25bb's if you think you are still good, get called, pot = 79.5bb's
River we have 61bb's left to bet into a pot of 79.5bb's meaning you can comfortably bet this and not look suspicious

In single-raised, HU pots it's going to be hard to get stacks in most times - you usually have to have a reraise on some street. I wouldn't worry about this, overbetting is usually going to be bad. It certainly has its uses in a lot of spots but for the most part, concentrate on extracting value from someone's entire range, not on getting their whole stack every hand.

LAGs>TAgs, thats why you wont find a lot os LAG regs in micro...

You make most money playing the opposite type. Therefore when most people play tight and aggressive, the people who loosen up to exploit this tightness are going to make most money. If everyone played loose passive, TAGs would make the most money, hence the reason playing TAG is sought after in micro's poker (most profitable against fish).

TAG is also esay to play good than LAG, thats the true reason most micro regs playing TAG.

Totally agree with this.

Agree with this partially, because seriously, for the main reason playing TAG is so profitable at micros refer to what jbbb said.

However, yes being a good LAG means you have to be a demon hand reader, and hand reading is difficult. As a LAG you are more often attacking villains' ranges while you yourself have air or marginal holdings etc. TOUGH!

For now I prefer to aspire to being a good TAG, because that will be enough to win at the micros, and a little beyond I don't doubt.

Effective LAG play is about reading players as well as hands. For example, if you determine that a particular player is a flop or drop type, you can profitably play a wider range of hands against him, especially if you can isolate him in position. That means raising with hands you might call or even fold against a different type of player.

It's also important to note that if you want to play LAG, you have to expect and get used to greater variance.