Do ANY of u agree with Allsopp here??? I don`t!!!

In one of my recent threads I got this from Allsopp. I`m not being funny or disrespectfull, but I don`t think this play could ever work long term. If it does, the amount of times I have had a rant about poker being luck would hold up. I have said before, pot odds will only work if everyone is playing a similar way.

Let me have your thoughts guys!!!

Key points:
1. Poker includes luck it is not just luck.
2. Pot odds are the same no matter how you play. Poker is a game of mistakes. If your odds are 8 to 1 and pot odds are 2 to 1, then calling is long term -EV. It doesn't matter if you're a pro or a donk, it is -EV.
3. Calling with any two cards you think are live will pan out to be -EV.
4. Poker is about both odds and people/how they act. Not just one or the other. Oh yeah, sometimes the cards do matter too.

So u don`t agree either???

Yes, I don't not not agree. LOL

I guess I'm agreeing with you, but I'm acknowledging that there are bits of truth in Allsopp's post. However, his bits of knowledge are incomplete and his theory flawed.

You win and get my vote.

Sane as JD, there's an element of truth to what he says but if he applies that thinking it's long term -EV.

Pot odds works no matter how people play. I think you may be missing something about their application if you think they don't.

Allsopp's attitude is very, very loose. This does work for pros like Gus Hansen and Gavin Smith. But for 99.9% of players, this blanket looseness is big trouble. Even Gus & Gavin know when to back off.

When I run into players like this, my notes are something like "likes 2 see flops, relies on luck, alwys rz ur premiums- no slwply".

I'm with the "element of truth" crowd. In order to be successful in playing like this, though, you need to bluff more than occasionally. You're hoping to stack the other player, but if you only check-raise all-in on the flop (or whatever) when you have the nuts or close to it, good players will simply just start to fold when that happens. So you need to have the guts to bluff with 4-high from time to time, and get stacked yourself when you walk into someone who actually does call with his A-high.

Agreed but calling in hoping your opponents don't hit or calling cause it is suited connectors from the blind is sort of ludicrious. You are hoping the 6X BB raise is only from a hand holding of a,k or a,q. You don't know if they have aa's, kk's, qq's, jj's, 10's, 99's or even 88's and 77's. If you are calling with 7'8 suited and they made that strong of a pre-flop bet. You are hoping they don't hit a set while you hit a pair?

I personally don't use that Doyle Brunson-esque style, but it does work. Big pairs and TPTK type hands give implied odds when your opponent is a donk, and when you do hit with your suited connectors, you can win huge pots because these people will pay you off.

My argument is that in online tournaments you don't have time to be dicking around and calling 6BB raises with suited connectors, and especially not with one-gapper unsuited hands like 64. Blinds rise too quickly to be messing around with these hands. Cash games, sure, but you need to make sure you have a very good read on your opponent, and have very good hand reading skills in general which is very hard online.

What happens when you hit a 248 flop with 78? You might gamble with it and get some chips in the middle if you think your opponent has a big ace, but what if he has an overpair? You're probably going to lose a decent pot. That's why you need an excellent read on your opponent which I think that most of us at our level don't have, and IMO it's just not worth the hassle dealing with these types of hands. I'll limp into a multiway pot if I can get good odds (~6:1 or better) and win a decent pot if I hit a big hand.

If you really want to gamble by calling raises with junk hoping to de-stack someone with a bigger (PF) hand, then Doyle's suggestion was never to call a raise for more than %5 of your stack.

I'm ranting, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't disagree with Allsop, I just rather use a TAG style in tournaments, and LAG up when others start tightening up. I don't bother with gambling hands when there's a raise in front of me.

Considering pot odds only, this is true. You have to remember implied odds too though - if your opponent is loose enough and you think you can squeeze enough out of him to make your call a 'good' one, then by all means call. In your situation (getting 8:1 drawing, and 2:1 on your money) I'd most probably fold, but just remember that bad pot odds don't necessarily mean you should fold. I'll call a flush draw with 3:1 or even 2:1 if I think my opponent will pay me off.

Ok, what I will say is, unless you have been playing poker a while and have a big bankroll this strategy will not work. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not - but it is a successful winning style because the majority of players that play poker will put it all in with top pair very good kicker or a big pocket pair.

How many times do you remember losing your entire stack to a rag hand when you had a premium hand? Well, how about if there was a style of play geared towards busting people using rag hands? Ever wondered whether the players you call fish are actually fish? Or just very good poker players...

You wouldn't call any of the players in High Stakes Poker fish would you? Well they will all tell you similar to what I will tell you.

Forget your $1 Ebay tight aggressive E-Books. You can take people for much more money defying odds than relying on them for long term success.

As chuck says, unless you have a big stack its hard to make this work in tournaments. In fact, even if you have a monster stack its very hard because blinds constantly increase and there are usually other people on the table that can bust you. The key part of tournament play is not to go bust so that becomes a problem!

The key to this style of play is knowing when to lay down a big hand and knowing when to call a big raise with a hand. Alot of players dont have these attributes, but they can be aquired over a long period of time.

Basically, i'm going to tell you how I make money using this style of play and then you will understand how to make money from not ALWAYS playing the mathematical odds. [of course you should still play the odds the majority of the time]

I'll sit down at a Cash table always with the absolute maximum buy in. The table has to be 8-10 seater so that the blinds dont get on top of you, because I only like to play when in position. The players seeing the flop percentage also has to be low [no higher than 30% on a 10 seater] this is because you want to be playing against tight aggressive players that rely on premium starting hands to play with and have alot of chips to play with.

Now I will play semi tight aggressive until I win some cash. However along the way I will bet at any flop and gladly check down a hand if called when weak or fold to a reraise. This is to personify an image of an idiot who will bet at anything. You want people to expect you betting. I wont bet unless the hand is a maximum of 3 handed [hence the low players per flop % preference]

By doing this you will:

1. Make the table think your a maniac and as a result they will eventually give you no respect. [hence stacking off to you]

2. Allow you to sustain your chip stack by stealing alot of pots by taking calculated bets when in the hand with a maximum of 2 other people.

The key to this strategy is basically pissing off tight aggressive players and getting them to stand upto you. The beauty of tight aggressive players standing upto you is invariably they never know when to fold a big hand they've made and they also throw alot of chips at you.

As a result, when in late position I will call any raise between 2-6 big blinds with any suited cards above 3 and below 10. For example 7 5, 6 7, 8 10 are perfect hands for this play.

The best part about this is because I have position, I dont have to keep my reputation of always betting the flop. If I miss, I can easily fold to their continuation bet and my image of a maniac is still preserved. If I hit [and I am talking about at least hitting 2 pair with no danger out there] then I can proceed to play the hand like i'm bluffing and pretty much always pickup a big pot or bust someone with a big pair or premium top pair.

Yes this ultimately results in beats when you get outdrawn - like with any hand in poker. But you will win alot more with this type of play than you will win with premium cards. Because nobody will ever put you on the cards your actually playing and with everyone playing tight aggressive ebook poker these days, there are just so many aces to crack!

If it costs me $50 in a cash game session calling off big raises pre flop and waiting to hit with rags to win $200 at the end of it then I call that a sound investment. It has nothing to do with luck, in fact its playing by the odds - Premium hands cant win everytime.

Many players on this forum will rubbish what I have typed and call me an idiot who will ultimately lose in the longrun.

But, I dont have to prove anything. It works, you just have to have a tilt tolerance for taking the badbeats, a big bankroll and an ability to put people on hands [which is quite easy in online poker when everybody seems to raise the same preflop with big hands at most levels]


Good Luck guys! You should think about what i've said next time you think someone at the table is a fish even though their stack is treble the maximum buy in!

Food for though, I might give it a try!!!

Ronaldadio

Ok mate, well if you want to give it a try you need some more tips. We all know that staying tight is the best way to protect your stack. This is also essential when your a "loose" player.

I consider myself a "loose" tight player even though by definition that would contradict itself!

Basically, you personify yourself as a maniac when in actual fact you are the most thoughtful and calculated person at the table. You are only considered a maniac because you dont play "textbook" poker like most do and lose in the longrun. You need to show alot of discipline to pull this off because you need to forget everything you thought you knew about playing winning poker [tight aggressive style]

In order to be successful you basically need to maintain your chipstack and dish out badbeats. This can be done by folding to raises with most "premium" hands from any position. The reasoning behind this is, people generally raise with big cards or pairs. Since most of the time you would call raises with big hands such as AJ, AQ, KQ, JJ you need to now be prepared to fold them to any raise to ensure your cards are always live and your never dominated in a hand. Sure they look pretty, but why bother getting involved in trouble hands when you can pick your spots in other situations and win more in the longrun?

You might call me crazy. But the reasoning behind this is, people have probably raised you with hands that are likely to have you dominated. Its just not worth risking taking a badbeat and going broke when you were dominated right from the start or by getting outdrawn when you think your ahead.

Statistically AK offsuit is only a 3 to 1 favourite against 7 2 offsuit. Food for thought? The odds dont play as big apart in poker as most make you believe. Yes you should try and get your money in with the best of it, but that has nothing to do with starting hands. All hands can win and lose and all hands can have their winning percentages change when the flop comes down!

When employing this strategy I must stress that you need to take calculated measures to win big pots. This means instantly folding rag hands such as K9, A9 and anything below them that aren't connected in some way. Examples of the hands you need to be playing against big raises are 10 7, 8 6, 6 7. These are PERFECT hands for breaking people at poker.

If you want to see how well it works I suggest playing some micro no limit 0.25/0.50. You can win a nice amount at this level with the maximum buy in being $50 and not lose too much cash in the process...

Just try and get used to it. You must also maintain your chipstack at the maximum buy in to ensure profit maximisation. If your a tight aggressive player you may need to use reloads to do this but when you gain more experience playing loosely and taking calculated risks you will learn how to steal pots to maintain your stack.

I rarely have a losing session simply because I dont have to rely on getting dealt a hand to be in profit. You just have to know when people are strong or weak and play accordingly as a result in order to break them, bully them or fold a hand to them.

Poker isn't a game of percentages or odds, its a game of people or position.

To complete this style of play you should read Super System by Doyle Brunson, it taught me everything I know. Its geared more towards cash games than tournaments though...

Good luck and let me know how you do.

AK's actually only a 2 to 1 favourite over 72o, if you're all-in pre-flop.

Trouble is though, are you calling a bet on a flop of Q-9-2 with your 7-2o, which is ahead of AK at this point? Even if you do call, I can't see that you'd be able to raise or bet with it on the turn or river, and you can still get outdrawn and have no clue where you are, so the amount of value you get for your hand is severely limited even if you go to showdown.

Also, because you only see 3 of the 5 community cards to start with, you're less likely to make any sort of hand on the flop than the 2 to 1 suggests, because you can't call a bet here and see the other cards. I realise you're not suggesting playing 72o, but suited connectors where you hit 2 pair + or a big draw.

What you're saying really is to play the implied odds given by a TAG player, which is good advice in NL. You can make up for the lost calls pre-flop with your positional steals and the big pots when you do hit.

I would say though it is very important to understand the pot odds and implied odds if you're playing suited connectors in NLHE, so you can tell if you're getting the right odds to call in in those marginal draw situations.

Just interested to know
- what is your VPIP % (i.e. what % pots do you get involved in pre-flop)? You ditch the trouble hands like AJ and KQ that many people play and your hand requirements are pretty specific - suited connectors from late postion.
- how much do you bet to pick up the pot?

Good article.

Hi, your right about having to know the odds. If you try to chase everything using this style of play you'll just go broke quickly.

As for how many flops I see, well I see quite alot but only because I limp from late position alot. I wont feel the need to jump into raised pots with "premium" hands unless they are something special and as a result can afford to see more flops.

I usually bet about 2/3 the pot to pick it up. This convasses a pot steal and also throws the opponent off. I also bet even numbers because even numbers are psychologically higher than uneven. For example if a pot is $7, I would be $6.20 as opposed to $5.30

I was with you on the first post up to a point.

The second got less convincing when you advocate folding strong hands to avoid getting sucked out (surely your table image makes these highly profitable?)

And with the quote above you lost me I'm afraid.

The psychology of pricing extends to shaving a penny off of items so they seem cheaper I don't think it extends to making £11.99 seem less than £10.80.

As was said a lot earlier in the thread, there is something in what you say in calling a raise with less than premium cards in certain very specific circumstances, but to complement this by limping lots of hands, betting lots of flops and folding AQ, KQ, JJ is off beam.

Any stats for this? VPIP, bb/100? PFR?

It isn't about odds and percentages?? Then why you know about 3:1 to call with 7,2 vs A,Q.

My brother in law plays this style at our home games. Problem with the style is the fluctuation in your bankroll, not to mention the so called tight-aggresive people.

One thing though you did mention and hit the nail on the head with was bad beats can and do happen. This is where emotions should not enter the picture and ones ego has to be let go as well.

Poker isn't about odds and percentages because you tend to lose alot more than you win with hands that suggest you should play odds and percentages.

The swings are far more severe for a tight aggressive player than for a player like me. Simply because they are inclined to take more badbeats than I am and rely on CARDS to win cash. Whereas I rely on situations and capitalising on weakness.

Its hard for many to grasp why how I play is the perfect way to play because you've programmed your brains into thinking premium hands are the way to go. Problem is, most players play this style online these days and therefore in order to be profitable, you have to counter the majority and work at busting as many people as possible. Its not that hard a concept. But it is difficult to put it into practice.

No! the swings are far more severe for a maniac, always has been and always will be. Odds and percentages will always favor the tight aggresive person. Always has been and always will be.

You only have to work at making a profit(long term) which maniacs and those who can't grasp odds/percentages just don't understand/don't wish to understand/or don't care to understand.

However if your style works for you then that is great.
The pro's and everyone else advocates that tight aggresive is the way. What they fail to tell you is how to adjust and constantly play against other styles and opponents. This is where experience comes into play.

Now back to style of play, if it works for you then that again is great. Not every style fits every person. Now if you stray from that style which I know I have. I fall into a big fluctuation and losing.

Now back to odds and percentages, long term. 3:1 to win is 3:1 to win, meaning you will only win once while losing twice go figure.

Here is where I have to disagree with you.

How is that?
Dan Harrington is tight-aggressive; does he rely on CARDS alone to win cash?

Of course not.

How is it the swings are larger for TAG players? It's widely accepted that it's exactly the opposite to what you're saying. If you play hands that have a higher percent of winning, then you win more frequently with your hands than you would if you play lesser hands . What I think that you're thinking is that 'TAG' players overvalue their AAs and AKs and you give them huge beats when you hit with your 67s and they stack you off.

But I think you're mistaking a 'TAG' player for one who just can't lay down AA/KK/AK and other big hands. Just like how a good LAG player can bully around poor TAG players and win nice pots with their hidden monster hands, good TAG players know when they're beat and they can lay down their hands at most of the right times when a good LAG player sets them in. Good TAG players can also dominate poor LAG players who don't play their cards right.

There is no 'best' playing style, just as Twizzy said, a style may suit you more than another, but that doesn't make it a better style. It just suits your personality better, and if it works - then fine - keep it up.

IMO, the 'best' style is that which complements your table/opponents the best. If your opponents are playing super LAG, then tighten up, and vice versa.
Well here is just where I assume that you're Toady in disguise, and I've lost alot of respect for your opinion.

as they say, 'end rant'.

Nice post Chuck. I think you've done a great job at bridging the playing style gap and defining why some people think / play the way they do and others think / play the way that they do.

You amd Twizzy are right, too, that there are many styles out there. I don't really even believe that a player even has to find their style, but instead they need to find their styles. I think that a good poker player will have one generally underlying style that defines him, but at the tables they actually have multiple playing styles that are variations/derivatives of that underlying style which ultimately allow for certain flucuations/modifications. Most of this is seen in the oft given advice of mixing up your game play to keep from being read. Often, when people mix up their play, they are still working within the limits of the styles that they've determined/found to work best for them. Essentially they mix up their play within their own comfort zones. Anyway, I'm getting a little of topic and into what could be a totally differnt thread and I'm rambling, so...

in short, nice post and I agree.

Sounds like a new signature line for DM to me!!!

I didn't post to justify my style of play. If we all played in the same way nobody would ever win anything. I posted to explain how I play and why Ronald might be experiencing some loses.

Some Pro's will tell you that a tight aggressive style of play is the perfect style. Many other pro's wont. As you say there is no correct way to play, but many players dont play a very good Tight aggressive style, they are like robots and cant lay down hands and raise robotic pre calculated amounts for given situations.

Its like when you play a tournament and someone raises 4 times the BB, I'll call them off in late position with pretty much anything. When a raggy board comes down they will bet the pot exactly. I mean its funny, if the pot was 643.6218942 they would bet 643.6218942. Call that bet and 9 times out of 10 they will check the turn. You bet and they fold.

I dont care whether you agree with me, I never posted expecting anyone to anyway. Because generally people are stubborn. But for the guy telling me about swings, he clearly has no idea. If you play like a maniac you will undoubtedly go broke or have massive swings.

I'm not playing like a maniac though, in fact I am more controlled and calculated than most tight aggressive players could ever dream of being. But I personify my table image as being a maniac so that I get paid off.

I have small swings due to the fact that, I dont get involved in many tricky pots. Thats why I said the swings for a tight aggressive player are much worse. Because generally, they have to get involved in big pots with their big hands.

If you honestly think playing odds and percentages in no limit cash games will win you money in the long term then your dillusional.

Why?

Because:

1. You can never be fully sure what your opponent has.

2. You can never win as much with a big hand as you can lose.

3. When you get a badbeat it cripples you.

4. When the cards dont come, you cant really play any hands.

5. You think anyone that plays 8 5 offsuit is a fish.

Just kidding on the last point, but seriously. So many people that play poker are like that. I'm not on some political campaign to promote my style of play cause frankly the less amount of people that play like me the better! I wouldn't want to play against me because I'd never know where I was in a hand! I'd much rather beat up on people, piss them off and then bust them with their AA up against my 6 4 suited.

Good luck at the tables guys and remember, it takes a minute to learn and a lifetime to master.

So next time that your sweating over losing chunks of your $1000 bankroll and some fish goes and busts you. Go easy on him. He might be smarter than you think or he might be a pro doing some fishing of his own!

If I didn't know better I would think you were winding us up

Your case for this style of play is somewhat undermined by the lack of evidence.

Have you got any figures at all to justify this? How many bb do you make for every 100 hands?

(this doesn't include telling us that 3bb/100 is psychologically greater than 6bb/100)

Ok I can't be arsed going into great detail so here's a summary of your summary as I see it.

Do I get free holecard reader software when I start using your strategy then? Otherwise, how does it improve my hand-reading ability?

Yes you can, rather easily. You've obviously been playing with TAGs so long you've forgotten that calling stations and suchlike exist. In fact, you place such emphasis on using your strategy on TAGs after using some metagame to turn them into calling stations, umm, why not just play calling stations in the first place?

A bad beat is a sign that you've got your money in while ahead, and therefore a sign that over many repetitions of the same event you will make money as your actual profit from the hand approaches your expectation. So, umm, why should I be afraid of bad beats?

Playing TAG requires one to hit cards, whereas what amounts to waiting to flop 2 pair+ does not? Okay, cool.


If this is one big wind-up (I really suspected it was when reading the 'fold premium hands' bit, but the idea has gone off a little now), congratulations, (a) you got me to take it seriously, and (b) it was pretty funny.

Eh, thats where I leave this thread. I told you how I play and why its successful. I dont have the energy to enter this debate.

I would say good luck at the tables but some of you are just rude...

Ahh and just to clarify. This style of play probably wouldnt work at micro limits but I dont know as I haven't tried it there.

Upwards of 1/2 $ No limit 8-10 handed and you'll do just fine as the majority of players are very tight and like to protect their hands whilst at the same time will gladly fold if they miss wide and wont try and make plays against you bullying them.

What I think he is saying is if you are sitting with say AQ u r less likely to use his way because u could be up against AA, AK, KK, QQ - obviously a bad position to be in and these are the kind of hands that people are more likely to raise with??? Where this would fall down would be if the raiser was sitting with TT against your AQ - what happens then???

However, if u r sitting with say 67s I think u would actually be in better shape, all be it only slightly (in the 4 examples I have given, your AQ is massivley dominated by AA, AK, QQ - I think 67s would be in a better position?)

So, in effect, I think he means to carry out this play do not use AQ, AJ, KQ, or, I would guess, a low pp? or would Allsopp always call a raise with a low pp? I don`t know.

I still don`t agree 100%, but in the same way as limping in from early position with 22 every other hand or so, I think it could have its place - unfortunatly, not for me, I hasten to add - I aint got the balls!!!

Ronaldadio

Allsop
If you were playing me or plenty of others, in the above scenario, you would probably be facing JJ etc etc. Assuming BB was at say 1k. Are you really saying that if I put 4k in the middle you would call with say 8, 4os.

What happens when the flop is bet and then the turn.

I think some of you guys are missing allsop's point. I also think that this is advice primarily for no-limit cash ring games, not MTTs which require varying styles at different times.

He actually gives some very good advice for no limit cash games which I think should not be dismissed out of hand like some of you are doing.

I only spotted this thread 30 mins ago as I have been away.
It rather amazes me and at the same time fills me with joy that the majority of you appear to be against what Allsopp is saying.
Amazed because you tend to pick the bones out of tiny morsels of what he is saying and don't comment fully on his entire posts ( something that happens alot around here unfortunately ) and the fact that a lot of you view it as something new or offbeat, I'm stunned.
It fills me with joy because like you said Allsopp, if most players stick to their usual game there is more picking out there for this strategy to be successful, and I know for a fact there is nothing new about this strategy.
On a sadder note, on more than one occasion you explained fully, when,where,how,who,right time, wrong time, etc etc etc when to employ this type of play but nobody seemed to be able to remember that part.
Never mind though, I did, and like you said, if they don't want to use it, no problem.
Have a +rep on me.

I said a few times there's a kernel of truth in taking the implied odds into account when calling raises preflop (under certain circumstances).

It's the psychology of odd numbers beings higher and folding AJ, AQ, KQ, JJ to avoid trouble that I find bizarre. Yes they can get you in troube, but the answer isn't folding them.

Yeah, in essence he's taken a good point and twisted it to the realms of ridiculousness.

To compare, getting some exercise every day is a good idea, but exercising intensively for 24 hours a day probably isn't.

His little summary thing is so ridiculous it was impossible ("You can never win as much with a big hand as you can lose"? lol) for me not to comment on it.