Originally Posted by mbrenneman0
I'm enjoying reading easy game by baluga whale (Andrew seidman) it preaches a much more aggressive style than most books though.
That's not a bad thing.
People that play aggressively are already doing several things right, even if they're doing it in all the wrong spots. That's why maniacs usually survive for longer than calling stations.
Betting gives your opponent a chance to fold. If he folds, you win the hand whether you were ahead or not.
If you're passive, you give him free cards to draw out on you, you pay off all his value bets, and you don't get enough value out of your strong hands.
There's a reason why all good books will promote a TAG style - tight aggressive
Originally Posted by moosepaw
there's also playing at a 'worse' level. too many fish to even play poker many times! bluffing is not a thing many times at too low of stakes.
This is just horrible advice!
The more fish there are, the more you stand to win. Your win rate will come from fish, not from regulars and/or better players.
The idea is to exploit your opponents. Fish are FAR more easy to exploit than regs, and if you don't know how to do it, then you're playing at stakes you shouldn't be playing at.
What, do you think that Daniel Negreanu, Phil Laak, Gus Hansen, Phil Ivey, Tom Dwan and Phil Hellmuth would EVER play at a table where it's just them, if it weren't for a TV show with none of their own money at stake?
No, if these guys are all at the same table in a real cash game, then that's because there's some idiot millionaire donking away tens of thousands of dollars at that table as well.
Your money comes from weaker players - not from players that are of your skill level, and definitely not from players that are more skilled than you.
Basically, if you're saying "I hate playing with fish - that's not poker", then frankly, you're the fish.
Oh, and btw, if bluffing is not a thing at certain stakes because nobody ever folds, then guess what? You shouldn't bluff at those stakes!