Hi again everyone. First off I am sorry that I haven't replied in awhile. I have been very busy and not around a computer much at all. I just read through all the replies here and I am just going to comment on a bunch of the general ideas being discussed. I want to thank Big_Rudy and debpes for keeping this thread going and getting the study group underway. Great job!
I think the three main points that I got from the discussion thus far are:
- Debpes's analysis of the player types in my book.
- The omission of the LAG player type in my book and how that relates to the games that Americans play on specifically on the Merge network.
- Big_Rudy talking about how to differentiate different types of LAG's and this player type giving him the most trouble.
1) I thought debpes's analysis of the different player types in my book was excellent as well. Regarding the transition to 6max, I agree with what was said. The numbers will need to be adjusted upwards a bit in most cases and debpes also does a good job of estimating them in her post as well.
Nits in 6max will probably be the same as a TAG in full ring, around 15/12. TAG's in 6max will be around 21/18. SLP will probably be a little closer to a 30/6 or so in 6max. Fish are about the same, look for 40+ VPIP and a low PFR. And maniacs will have similar numbers regardless of the game type.
2) As alaskabill stated I wrote this book mostly from the perspective of my experience playing on
pokerstars. I am Canadian and so was not affected by BF. I do realize that there are some real differences in the playing environment for most American's these days however. I can't say that I have played extensively on Merge but enough to recognize that the games are certainly a fair bit more advanced compared to similar limits on a site like Stars. And the lack of table selection alone may have a lot to do with this.
I think there are plenty of nitty tables on Stars at every level, even NL2 but the difference is that it is a lot easier to get up a leave and find a different one. I commiserate with Americans who cannot do this. So regarding my book in general I always advocate that they follow the advice for NL5 and higher and not so much the NL2 stuff. Those circus like games are much harder to find.
As for LAG's and the omission of that player type from my book again it comes from my perspective of playing on Stars. I just haven't seen too many of them at least at full ring anywhere in the micros (NL50 and below). It's just mostly nits and TAG's with the odd fish or SLP here and there. I have been dabbling more into 6max lately though and I think they are more prevalent there. Also I know that they show up in the deep games quite routinely probably due to the increased EV of picking up a lot of antes. But all and all I just felt that there are far too little of them in general to bother discussing in my book.
3) So with the above said, LAG's have certainly popped up in my experience from time to time at the micros though. And Big_Rudy is right, there is a large continuum that they may play at that can make them difficult to adjust to. Using full ring numbers they could be anywhere from a 30/25 to a 50/45. I try not to consider somebody a maniac until their VPIP is over 50 because I don't think anyone playing a LAG style and trying to win will have a VPIP that is that high.
So at the higher end of this range they are going to be FOS an awful lot just due to the straight math on playing half your hands and how often you hit something in Hold'em. On the lower end they will still obviously be light a lot. It's really hard to say how much you should adjust between the two though because their aggressive play still makes them difficult to adjust against. And it is always important to remember that everybody get's sets, overpairs and big hands, not just nits.
So a couple of general things that I would suggest is to just try and not play that many hands against them like I suggest versus TAG's. Aggressive players, no matter how loose, will always be much harder to play against than passive players. If a LAG is on your direct left I would actually just get up and leave the table. It's just not worth it. Seat position is really of vital importance in poker and something that I think isn't talked about nearly enough. A LAG on your left versus a LAG on your right is a huge difference.
Secondly, just kind of use their aggression against them and don't feel obligated to play a big pot everytime. And having them on your right will go a long way to helping you out in this regard. If you are getting into lots of sticky situations versus them it is probably because they are on your left which makes it much easier for them to
bluff raise you and make your life suck in general.
Something that I like to preach a lot about in my videos, book, with students etc. is that if you don't know what you are going to do if you get raised then just check or call. Don't put yourself in situations with decent (but somewhat marginal) hands versus them that will create a major headache should they raise you. Make your decisions easy versus them and all players for that matter. Bluff raise them with something that you don't mind throwing away. Or just wait for a nut type hand.
There are no easy answers versus these player types. You will never make a big amount off of them. You will make a big amount off of the fish. And that is why I think it is so important to focus on them. While the games are a lot tougher these days than they were even a few years ago regardless of the site, you can find fish all the way up to the highest limits. I know because I was working with a high stakes player myself last year and used to sweat him a lot at 5/10 and even higher sometimes on Stars. There are huge whales at every limit trust me. But they certainly are not on every table.
You need to get used to moving around a lot in today's online games if you want to have the most success. If there isn't a fish at the table, then you shouldn't be on it. And you should be laser focused on playing pots with them and themm only. Outplaying the regs will help your winrate but it will only ever be by a small amount. It just isn't worth bothering with to anywhere near the extent that I see on most forums these days. For me personally if the day comes when there are no fish (and I don't think that will happen by the way) I will quit poker.
Hope some of these thoughts help.
