The 2 main types of loose aggressive. Am I correct?

[texasfoldem]

I feel I have identified 2 main types of loose aggressive. One is really nasty and the other is actually quite a pushover. They both play loads of hands obviously - maybe as many as 90%. (I am thinking of cash games mostly here).

First: The nasty one, I feel, is someone who probably does use a HUD and is good at reading people and situations. You have to be very wary with them because they probably know the types of hands TAGs play. TAGs will play strong hands usually something in the region of AK, AQ, KQ, and top pair etc. If the flop comes badly (e.g. 952) these nasty LAGs will often bet very hard possibly with nothing. They will get strong players to fold (even if they C-betted) because they are not silly enough to play nothing or play too much for just a pair. At the same time, timid players will fold to nasty LAGs because the bets are too large. These nasty LAGs seem to make lots of money quick and lose quite a lot too... but they often end up with a very big stack. Obviously if you are patient you can get that big stack if you play smart.

Second: I feel this one will bet quite furiously when they get just anything at all! They are still playing tons of their hands but this is because they desperately need to see the flop... "You never know... I might get a pair of 4s!" They get their pair of 4s (because they are holding something like 74o) and then bet furiously. It often takes quite a bit of persuasion to get them to fold, or you capitalize on it because you have top pair, 2 pairs or better.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[AllenKll]

I can see your distinction in the two types of players... But the first one is not really LAG, the first one is a maniac. You tighten up against maniacs.

The second I would see as a cross between LAG and a calling station. I call them ace chasers and flush chasers... I remember this one guy live that got put out and was telling his friend loudly on the way to the rail... "But they were SOOTED!" LOL

It's definitely difficult to identify the difference in live play, but if you watch closely you can spot them out pretty quick.

just my $0.02

 

[texasfoldem]

I can see your distinction in the two types of players... But the first one is not really LAG, the first one is a maniac. You tighten up against maniacs.

The second I would see as a cross between LAG and a calling station. I call them ace chasers and flush chasers... I remember this one guy live that got put out and was telling his friend loudly on the way to the rail... "But they were SOOTED!" LOL

It's definitely difficult to identify the difference in live play, but if you watch closely you can spot them out pretty quick.

just my $0.02

I actually thought that the first one was the main type of LAG that people refer to. I am not so sure if some of them really are that maniacal. Some seem to have some form of game-plan. I agree, you must never loosen up for the first type (which I have done in the past when I tilted BADLY... hence big ugly downward spike on my pokertracker chart).

I was not so sure about the second. I was going to mention "calling station". I think some of the second type double up as calling stations too depending on the hand they have. The reason I see them as aggressive is because they can become very aggressive with just a low pair purely because they lack experience/ not realizing that they don't really hold much of anything good.

 

[Collin Moshman]

I think there's an important distinction between LAG players and this is a nice post to identify it. For me I'd say we could characterize it a bit more simply as "good LAG" and "bad LAG."

The Good LAG is a good hand-reader; knows when to back down and when to apply pressure; and thinks about the game at a high level.

The Bad LAG is just mindlessly betting to get opponents to fold. Sometimes this can still be effective, like heads-up against a weak opponent. But it's much easier to beat this opponent (by waiting until you connect with at least a decent pair at the flop and then calling him down in a large pot) compared to the good LAG.

 

[Danjwarburton]

Hi, I am a hyper-lag myself who plays zoom. Have a look at some stats from my lastest bankroll builder...

I can shed some light into the Hyper-Lag style and what is profitable.

Few key things, a decent hyperLAg player understands flop connectivity and ranges to an impressive degree. They know when players have hit and when they haven't

They also recognise steal/resteal opportunities preflop and often 3bet when holding blockers.

The majority of the style should be done preflop and on the flop as that is where most of the fold equity is. However, skilled hyper-LAgs will also understand when you have a capped range and sometimes fire 3 barrels if this is the case.

For the most part, if you see an opponent bluffing the river with air then most of the time they are a donkey (random fancy-play-syndrome gambler who likes to push people off hands for fun). I rarely triple barrel bluff, only when it is a dry board and turn and river come which completely ruin your hand. This is targetting a capped range which is the only triple barrel bluff that works well.

This style is INCREDIBLY mentally taxing and often involves talking through everything aloud to pull it off. It can work though.

Hope this brings some insight!

 

[akmost]

I don't have something new to write , because the above posts are super informative. The first category is the toughest one because this type of player is LAG he knows it and most likely he knows when and why to exploit you.For me as a rec are the toughest opponents.

The second category IMHO play straight forward , if they hit they bet everything , they don't know how to take care of their table image etc.

 

[Sidetracked]

I think the main thing to look for is are they 'good aggressive' or 'bad aggressive'

 

[texasfoldem]

OK, Thanks guys for the input. It is possible (in some ways) that there is some agreement with my definitions. I did kind of think of them as the GOOD, the BAD (and an UGLY maybe? )

I think there's an important distinction between LAG players and this is a nice post to identify it. For me I'd say we could characterize it a bit more simply as "good LAG" and "bad LAG."

The Good LAG is a good hand-reader; knows when to back down and when to apply pressure; and thinks about the game at a high level.

The Bad LAG is just mindlessly betting to get opponents to fold. Sometimes this can still be effective, like heads-up against a weak opponent. But it's much easier to beat this opponent (by waiting until you connect with at least a decent pair at the flop and then calling him down in a large pot) compared to the good LAG.

I think that is similar to what I said with some different points. I think the mindless betting one will also bet while not really realizing that they have a rather bad hand like bottom pair.

Hi, I am a hyper-lag myself who plays zoom. Have a look at some stats from my lastest bankroll builder...

I can shed some light into the Hyper-Lag style and what is profitable.

Few key things, a decent hyperLAg player understands flop connectivity and ranges to an impressive degree. They know when players have hit and when they haven't

They also recognise steal/resteal opportunities preflop and often 3bet when holding blockers.

The majority of the style should be done preflop and on the flop as that is where most of the fold equity is. However, skilled hyper-LAgs will also understand when you have a capped range and sometimes fire 3 barrels if this is the case.

For the most part, if you see an opponent bluffing the river with air then most of the time they are a donkey (random fancy-play-syndrome gambler who likes to push people off hands for fun). I rarely triple barrel bluff, only when it is a dry board and turn and river come which completely ruin your hand. This is targetting a capped range which is the only triple barrel bluff that works well.

This style is INCREDIBLY mentally taxing and often involves talking through everything aloud to pull it off. It can work though.

Hope this brings some insight!

Thanks for that insight. Yes, the VPIP is quite high but you seem to have pulled it off well. My VPIP does creep up a bit towards 30 sometimes but that is usually if I get a run of freakishly good hole cards in a row.

I don't have something new to write , because the above posts are super informative. The first category is the toughest one because this type of player is LAG he knows it and most likely he knows when and why to exploit you.For me as a rec are the toughest opponents.

The second category IMHO play straight forward , if they hit they bet everything , they don't know how to take care of their table image etc.

It is why I called them "nasty". It is not an insult to them personally, it is just that their style of play can be really quite difficult to predict sometimes. Very often they are willing to bet such drastic amounts that you really have to think twice about whether to call it.

I think the main thing to look for is are they 'good aggressive' or 'bad aggressive'

That is more or less what I was referring to. What I just said above applies probably to what you are saying here. The bad aggressive I assume you are saying is the one who is inexperienced and bets too hard on substandard hands.