The vast poker conspiracy

Ya know this whole tight thing is making me sick.
Optimal strategy is exactly that optimal. That is the strategy behind tight aggressive. Ironically, when you hear someone complain about a guy, he is never a tight aggressive, he is always a loose aggressive.
Optimal strategy will win, but never pay the bills. You will always remain a few bets ahead.
Holdem is a game of EXPLOITIVE strategy. Which tends to embody a loose aggressive style. Loosen up just a little bit everyone. Give action and you will receive action. You open your opponents to make mistakes which you can exploit. You must also be aware that you are now playing sub optimally. In other words you are vulnerable to attack as well. It is more difficult, but what poker is all about.

Playing Tight/Agg you will see alot of wholes in your opponents games, but will be in few pots where you have the opportunity to punish them for those mistakes, because you are patiently waiting for you next required starting value. How many of you have said, Damn, if I was in that hand I could have bet him off that. Or, Why doesnt he bet, its obvious the guy has nothing...
These are the laments of Tight Aggressive.

Open you game up, get in there and take those chips. Author after author tells you to be tight. They are giving you the SAFE strategy. Dont become a maniac, just loosen up a little bit. Have you ever noticed that none of them, even Phil H. doesnt use the strategy in his books to win...

I think its a conspiracy! Write books with basic optimal strategy for imperfect information games (poker games) ala poker - poker theory, sell them, then use that money to play explotive strategy against the people that bought you books... Genius I tell you. lol

Bill

Totally agree have always thought part of the super systems were written to ensure the game continues to get a good supply of producers.

i've been employing this recently already, trying to work out just how loose seems to be best.

was playing 4 handed earlier on a 3/6 table

went up 50 rather quick, but then dropped down to 140 loss, wound back up 30 and called it quits for lunch time

every hand is helping though

I think the books tell how to play ABC poker. They will tell you the easy hands to play and be aggressive with it. It is easy to do, you play these hands almost the same every time. Poker books are like magic books, they will tell you the very basics but will never divulge the big secrets.

You give me a hand like KQ offsuit. I could write a whole book on just that hand alone. When to play it, when to let it go. When to raise with it, when to try and limp in and see a cheap flop.

The stuff in books that are the meat and patatoes are the stuff like gap theory and positional betting. That is what really matter in holdem. The abillity to represent strength and to truely bully your opponents. You can win playing any two cards if you know what the other poeple play like.

I have learned alot from the books I have read but I think I play alot better when I don't get the respect from the table I deserve. I love to show a hand when I play something like 10 2 suited and get people scratching their heads. When you can do that, your profitability just went up. You know eventually someone is going to call when you have it and will let some good hands go when you don't.

All the books written are starting guidelines.. what all of them fail to mention is those guidelines aren't the golden rule. Still you need to pick a "comfort zone" and stick with it. Yes one has to step out of that comfort zone but then one has to step back into it as well.

The books are a great starting tool. You can still win games by sticking within the guidelines.

I've learned from playing and reading you're guys posts.(Fire 3 bullets at the pot and you will most likely induce a fold has been invaluable to me.)
So I will take Bill's advice I think and loosen up a bit. I think people see me as a tight player anyway so this may be good to change my image. Thanks for the idea Bill. Sometimes you get afraid to get in hands with less than optimal cards because if you do lose at a showdown the perception will be "what are you doing with that crap" or "you shouldn't play that!" or "you suck FISHY"
But you do need to shake it up a bit so I think I will. Thanks again!

You must be referring to live poker, online poker is aggressive enough. As far as the books the ones I have read seem to target beginners. Poker theory is for making profitable decisions, based on odds which has lead me down a road of losing my cash to the one guy who should not have been in the pot in the first place. (all of this in reference to online poker)
I would advise against taking any advise form me, as I have forgotten how to win at poker. The only thing I no how to do well is deposit and lose.

In "theory" I should still be making money @ online poker. I often get a nice pay out at multi seat tournaments, and my SnG average is a steady %85. But i used to make most of my bankroll @ ring tables. As I said in "theory" I should still be making $ at the ring tables. I mix my game and adapt to table swings. My favorite place to make a buck used to be a real ag/ ring table where I would 1. profile the players 2. play tight / aggressive / deep stack poker employing poker theory. I would make my stay at these tables long and patient. Another place to pick up a buck or two was short stays at overly tight tables where I played lose aggressive, pulling in pot after pot until I tilt a solid player into dumping there stack in my lap when I wake up with a hand. These are strategies that should consistently generate an increasing bankroll. Should !

Could it be I was just lucky for two years and really have no clue how to win at poker?
"Optimal strategy will win," ? Mixing up your game and adaptation to tables, table swings, and a range of opponents, and being able to put your opponent on there exact hand most of time, Shouldn't this be optimal?

poker office says im a semi loose aggressive player at ring games , if thats my style im doing pretty well with it and i think i shouldnt chage it just cuz tight aggressive is more profitable for others doesnt mean i would do best with that strat . maybe i just know when a loose call is good wich makes me lose aggressive but maybe i have more profit than a tight aggressive player since im looking out for some loose plays too

Tazz,

That is sort of my point. See optimal strategy as embodied by Tight/Agg gets you just enough to stay in front of the game. When a big down swing hits you really are never prepared for it. See the stuff in books keeps you from marginal situations, you are only in situations that are safe. Marginal situations are where the profit is, and profit that allows you to ride the bad times out.
When I say loosen up, all I mean is play a few more starting hands than normal, and against some opponents play almost all of them. Limp just a few times and come in for raises.
This is a poor example but
Stuey U.:
Ill play this 8,3 off against him for a big raise...he is tight, and he aggressive, but I am more agrressive. If the flop has no card higher than a Jack, he will bet anyway, and I will force him off his hand. He will lay down... Thats what you have to do to beat this game. He is exploiting the tendency of his opponent. The first player plays optimal strategy, Stuey plays exploitive strategy. Yet, in no book does it say when you should play 8,3,off for a big prelop raise...why not? Folks are so trained that they dont even want to SHOW "bad" cards for fear of embarrassment. They are worried people at the table will think they are stupid. They all read the same books.

The point is Your cards need to stop mattering, go out there and toss some bad beats on folks.
I am going to write a book on loose aggressive strategy, exploitive strategy, it is time folks know the truth.
ps You may agree Dont you love Tight aggressives? They are only in the pot a few times, so you just fold out of their way... unless you have a monster, than just sit back and let them bet their hand, toss a raise in on the end for good measure. They spend their days building a bankroll one bet at a time.

Bill

Poo
Thats about perfect semi loos in my humble opinion is just right. What percentage is your preflop hands your playing?

Bill

~36 % at 6 handed ring games dunno if Poker office counts the BB in but i guess so . I got this stat of from 1474 hands if every 6 th viewed flop is because of beeing big blind its 245 hands less wich makes it 30 % of the flops viewed wich i decided to pay for to view .

short handed that number isn't terribly high but at full ring I'd consider that on the loose end of semi-loose! Generally voluntarily putting money in the pot at less than a 20 percent clip is considered tight preflop. Cold card nights I have been known to drop significantly below 10 percent! Bill in more simple terms is saying NL poker should be more about winning huge pots and breaking your opponents, which of course should be every NL player's goal. When he says loosen up I doubt very seriously he thinks you should be pushing the 40 percent boundry! Anything above the mid 20's and you are probably costing yourself money in the long run. I also wouldn't recomend inexperienced or short bankrolled players going this route.

LOL I too have often pondered this very point! Good advice, and well taken, Bill! Thanks!

XDmanx007- "When he says loosen up I doubt very seriously he thinks you should be pushing the 40 percent boundry! Anything above the mid 20's and you are probably costing yourself money in the long run"

Well said XD. 35% is usually my limit but only when the cards are dropping well. I have tried to force the situation before in the 30% range and I just ended up giving my money away.

Although I haven't used Poker Tracker in a couple of months I believe I am not longer in the area of a rock and have moved toward being tight agressive more than I was just 2 months ago.

My percentage of flops seen is still low in comparison to most other players I am up against. But, the amount of pots I am winning has improved.

Not because I have opened up on my starting hand qualifications. Oddly enough I am playing even tighter than I have in the past. But, I am playing the hands I do get in much more agressively and that is paying off.

At least in ring games. In tournaments I still am getting beaten over the head with implied odd calls that always seem to work out for my opponent and not for me. I hate implied odds. I always seem to be on the correct side. But, still lose. Oh well, that's poker for you.