Tight vs. Aggressive

I've been playing a few years now and am finally seeing it turn around for me. I've found that I have the best results at the Sit-n-go's and try to spend most of my time there. Although it is inevitable to play some cash tables to fund the sit-n-go's and that's where I can struggle. For those of you who play cash tables. Do you have more luck winning at a tight table or a table with bigger pots and more aggressive players (even a maniac)?
Thanks for the thread and goodluck to all

in my opinion it is best to play at a mixed table

if you want slow and steady increase without much risk, the a tight table is fine

if you want high risk high reward, then a more aggressive table would be fine

but try to find mixed tables, they are the best of all

Well, first you need to make the correct distinction. Tight is NOT the opposite of aggressive. Tight is the opposite of loose, and passive is the opposite of aggressive.

So typically a player would be described one of the following:
1. tight-aggressive
2. loose-aggressive
3. tight-passive
4. loose-passive

Traditional wisdom says that you want to play against loose-passive players (fish).

I really don't care what style my opponent's play, but generally it's the looser players that will earn you the most money. Players who see 50% of all flops are the pure joy to play against.

Tight players are less fun but easier to read. One of the regulars at my game has a preflop raise percentage of 1%. When he raises preflop, you can be sure he's holding QQ, KK or AA.

Any table with Tenbob.

now thats just mean


but true (?)

don't you mean Drunkbob?

You will normally find that tight players are the better player (before anyone corrects this assertion, I realise there are good LAGs and bad TAGs). The largest profit is likely to come from loose games, but beware that they will inevitable have a higher varience (as you will inevitable get more bad beats) so you may have to lose a bit to make even more in the long run. If you play against a table of TPs then your variance will be less and they will be easier to read, but it'll take longer to extract money from them.

I like tight tables with players who get flustered by loose players.

Get advice from Tenbob.
Office Hours- 12:00pm - 3:00pm
Play against Drunkbob.
Office Hours- 3:00pm -12:00pm

i would say it doesnt matter as long as they have a definate style, if some1 consistently plays passive or aggressive then i find them easier to read, and i like to take advantage of them if i can...but playing cash games seems to be a very up and down thing for me, i have crazy variance haha

I'll play against the worse players. If that's the people seeing 60% of flops with little skill of playing postflop, I'll play them. If that's the people seeing 10% of flops and folding to a cbet if the flop misses them, I'll play them as well. Larger swings against the loose players (I think that's what you meant, tight vs. loose), but overall my greatest profit will ultimately come if I play against the worse players.

limit holdem is math.. no limit holdem is art.. figure out what type of player you are and how much variance you can stand.. decide if you are math or art oriented.. then play your best... cash games should be your bread and butter... figure out the style that best fits you and work hard on your game...

To me the table doesn't matter. I've seen great pockets lose to a river and then won with a Q high the next hand. Play YOUR game, watch the other players and adjust accordingly, but remember, it is your bankroll that will grow or shrink.
Good Luck and watch your cards