|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/1/2008 3:58:23 PM PACIFIC |
 "Wild Man" vs. "Tight Agressive", Banning, 8. Dec 2003 00:15 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I have frequented this site for the last ten months or so. I don't poste that much, especially lately because my topics don't get very much attention because they aren't the same as everybodies. They aren't, "Bad Beat" or "I'm in a slump" hands, or badly described hands that we can't help with because they never describe the players and their styles. This post I'm making; like many of my other posts, is a bit different. The general concensus at this forum is that tight aggresive play style is the best. Period. All advice given from alot of the "gurus" is that: "you shouldn't have been in the hand in the first place" type. However, there is a different school of thought put out about a very profitable play style. That play style is the "Wild man" image. This was how Stu Ungar apparently played and what Mike Caro seems to think is way more optimal. To describe it, is to play in more marginals hands and mix it up alot more, variance increases, but so does overall profit. The idea presented by Mike Caro is that alot of hands are 50/50 i.e. are pretty much on average make about as much as they lose overall. By playing more hands and having good reads on people one can gain a bit of an edge and put on the table image of a wild man which leads to making more money on your good hands. It does reduce the power of ones bluffs but it more than makes up for it in payoffs. I'm wondering what you guys think about this different style of play? I would like to start a bit of a debate of "tight aggresive" vs. "wild man" play style. The way I see it is this; and feel free to disagree this is supposed to be a debate, TA (tight aggresive) is easier to do for medium quality players and is a good simple way of making money. Once a player has moved beyone medium quality player, to the point where they are very experienced and have way better reads on people and way better self control, they should start working on playing as many marginal situations as possible to exploit their increased skill more and as such have more edges. I've read many articles talking about how as ones skill is better than ones opponents one can play more hands. this is a corollary of that. Once that player starts playing more marginal hands, creating a table image of a "wild man" becomes alot easier than the "scary guy who always has the goods" and one loses the ability to bluff. but one gains the ability to make way more money on made hands. Nobody at this forum seems to even consider the wild man play style. I wish to learn more about the both of them and think that we all would gain by considering the disadvantages and advantages of both. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: "Wild Man" vs. "Tight Agressive", SpaceAce, 8. Dec 2003 00:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The higher the variance, the more likely you will go all the way down to the felt and bring your poker career to a screeching halt. Unless you have an enormous bankroll, why take the risk? Would you rather invest in something with a predictable annual return of 10% or in something that might return 15% but also might leave you without a nickel to your name? If you are a mathematical supergenius or a poker prodigy, maybe you can get away with that wild style of play because you will always know just when to get out but it wouldn't take very many mistakes with that style to put a big hurt on you. I don't believe playing a lot of marginal hands can possibly be in your favor long-term unless you have some particular talent that allows it or you are playing at a level where having the best hand isn't so important to winning the pot. SpaceAce | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: "Wild Man" vs. "Tight Agressive", Poker God, 8. Dec 2003 01:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think both styles of play are very profitable, it just depends all on the fact of the table or situation your in. I try to vary my play and use both styles as much as possible. I think the fact that your missing is that over the long run playing tight straight-forward poker will get you the money. I don't know of any players who have made there living in poker by being the "wild man" as you put it. Im aware of what you said about Caro's writings on being the wild man, but even he states that its to vary his play. Even if your of the super-natural playing ability I find it hard pressed for anyone to come back from a card deficit all the time. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: "Wild Man" vs. "Tight Agressive", Schuster, 8. Dec 2003 01:47 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| In general, a majority of the posts here suggest the tight aggressive image rather than the wild man image. You are completely correct about that, but this isn't a function of unoriginality, it's a function of the game being played. Most of the posts here concern limit hold'em, and one of the main issues in hold'em is that it's difficult to connect with a flop even with a good starting hand. As a result, the ability to steal pots when you don't have a hand adds very much to your long term expectation field. It's easy to see that a tight aggressive image allows you to do this best. Contrast this to a loose Omaha 8 game. Most of the time, you are drawing to the nuts and want people to pay you off. A wild man image would work absolute wonders here, because most of the time when you bet, you want people to call. You're putting in the money for value. Yes, there are occasions where you would like people to fold a weaker hand so your weak two way hand will win one way, or so that you increase the value of your weak high with a made low, but most of the time, this is not the case in a loose game. Draw to the nuts and get paid. I will not speak for Mike Caro, but I would suspect that his loose lively wild man image is a function of his main game, draw poker. The main mistake most players make in draw poker is they call too much. Anytime an opponent calls too much, it's easier to make him call more than to fold, and anytime an opponent folds too much, it's easier to make him fold more than to call. As such, a wild man image would best exploit this weakness in draw players. You get your money in with the best of it before the draw, and make good value bets after the draw. Back to hold'em! In a "typical" game (the definition of which is up for debate, but most can surmise my meaning by the following) you will do better to steal pots when no one has much of a hand than to get paid off when you do make a strong hand. Weak hands come up much more often than strong hands, and since an "average" number (again, up for debate) are seeing the flop, there is less in there for when you finally do hit that strong hand. If you were in a super loose game where most everyone saw the flop and a lot of people chased to the river, then you would be in a situation where your opponents are making the mistake of calling too much. Now, you would love to have this wild man image, because you know that you will have to have a strong hand to beat this many people in the pot, and you would like to make as much as possible on it when you finally do get it. In short, most of the posts you see that advise a tight aggressive image do so because that is the most profitable in most hold'em games, even if the poster doesn't know exactly why this is true. But, there are times when it can be very advantageous to switch up your image. Recognizing the different circumstances and adjusting accordingly, rather than keeping one style and sticking to it, is what makes a good player a great player. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: "Wild Man" vs. "Tight Agressive", Banning, 8. Dec 2003 02:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Indeed, the adage of modifying ones play according to the opponents wins out again. Thanks for the long and well spoken response. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: "Wild Man" vs. "Tight Agressive", noiseboy, 8. Dec 2003 09:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I would disagree that we all are in agreement here that tight aggressive is best. I think it is certainly best for limit poker because the betting limits don't allow you to put the huge amounts of pressure on your opponents that big bet poker does. Even Stu Ungar was quoted as saying that in a low limit game he'd have "no chance". It's just part of the structure of limit poker that people call you more, thus your bluffs and semi-bluffs will succeed less and most of the time you need to show a hand. Thus, it becomes a game where you want to start out with the best hand, since you will more often end up with the best hand when you start with good cards. In big bet poker, the most important thing is to be aggressive, and not necessarily tight or loose with consistency. Brunson and Cloutier both talk a lot about changing gears from tighter to looser play and back again so that opponents cannot get a line on your play. In No Limit, I think that once you get good reads on your opponents, then you can bet anytime you think they are weak, almost regardless of what your cards are, as long as you are pretty certain you will succeed. The nice thing is that bluffs are always correct when they succeed and sometimes when they fail (as they contribute to your crazy image and get you paid off when you wake up with AA, and sometimes you will hit an out and break someone). There are successful big bet players on both the tight and loose ends of the spectrum, but I don't think there are any who aren't relentlessly aggressive when they do decide to play. Then again, they also have to know when to back down and when to fire more bets. I think this is the hardest thing, knowing when someone who called your first bluff is in for the duration or will fold to another show of force. Personally, I'm not at a point where I can get away with the "crazy" style, but I bring it into play from time to time. My favorite players to watch are definitely the "crazy" ones like Gus Hansen, Daniel Negreanu, Devilfish, etc... However, I'd like to point out that they may not play the same in ring games as tournaments. I'm not sure as I haven't seen them in ring games, but I suspect that the limited bankroll in tournaments allows them to push people around more because of the fear of going broke. In a ring game, people are more likely to call you down. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: "Wild Man" vs. "Tight Agressive", Banning, 9. Dec 2003 00:36 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Gus Hansen, Daniel Negreanu, Devilfish: I guess I'll have to check them out. I know a bit about Daniel, and read some of his articles, but the other two are unknowns to me. thanks for the post from you as well as everyone else. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: "Wild Man" vs. "Tight Agressive", KevinK, 8. Dec 2003 11:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I have used both before. What I will do is start out like a total nut, raising on anything. Then I will change gears on them, switching to good cards for a while. I just reverse the action if I start tight early. Either way will get you pots, but playing better cards is recommended since you want to have the best shot at busting the calling stations and the chasers early on. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: "Wild Man" vs. "Tight Agressive", Snorbolus, 8. Dec 2003 12:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| There is a big difference in the absolute strength of break even starting hands between raked and unraked games. A break even proposition in an unraked game is likely to be a big looser at a B&M low limit table with a 10% rake. Snorbolus > ...... The idea presented by Mike Caro > is that alot of hands are 50/50 i.e. are pretty much on average make about as > much as they lose overall...... on 8. Dec 2003 00:15 Banning wrote: > I have frequented this site for the last ten months or so. I don't poste that > much, especially lately because my topics don't get very much attention because > they aren't the same as everybodies. They aren't, "Bad Beat" or "I'm in a > slump" hands, or badly described hands that we can't help with because they > never describe the players and their styles. > This post I'm making; like many of my other posts, is a bit different. The > general concensus at this forum is that tight aggresive play style is the best. > Period. All advice given from alot of the "gurus" is that: "you shouldn't have > been in the hand in the first place" type. > However, there is a different school of thought put out about a very profitable > play style. That play style is the "Wild man" image. This was how Stu Ungar > apparently played and what Mike Caro seems to think is way more optimal. > To describe it, is to play in more marginals hands and mix it up alot more, > variance increases, but so does overall profit. The idea presented by Mike Caro > is that alot of hands are 50/50 i.e. are pretty much on average make about as > much as they lose overall. By playing more hands and having good reads on > people one can gain a bit of an edge and put on the table image of a wild man > which leads to making more money on your good hands. It does reduce the power > of ones bluffs but it more than makes up for it in payoffs. > I'm wondering what you guys think about this different style of play? I > would like to start a bit of a debate of "tight aggresive" vs. "wild man" play > style. The way I see it is this; and feel free to disagree this is supposed to > be a debate, TA (tight aggresive) is easier to do for medium quality players and > is a good simple way of making money. Once a player has moved beyone medium > quality player, to the point where they are very experienced and have way better > reads on people and way better self control, they should start working on > playing as many marginal situations as possible to exploit their increased skill > more and as such have more edges. I've read many articles talking about how as > ones skill is better than ones opponents one can play more hands. this is a > corollary of that. Once that player starts playing more marginal hands, > creating a table image of a "wild man" becomes alot easier than the "scary guy > who always has the goods" and one loses the ability to bluff. but one gains the > ability to make way more money on made hands. > Nobody at this forum seems to even consider the wild man play style. I > wish to learn more about the both of them and think that we all would gain by > considering the disadvantages and advantages of both. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: "Wild Man" vs. "Tight Agressive", Banning, 8. Dec 2003 20:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| i kinda meant that after you consider the rake there are hands that are break even. those are the ones i was referring to. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: "Wild Man" vs. "Tight Agressive", Snorbolus, 9. Dec 2003 08:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I only posted as a "word of caution" to those who play in raked games. If the game is raked you must be very very selective in your starting hand requirements to overcome this massive mathematical disadvantage. I suspect that even if you were so tight in your starting requirements that others at the table considered you a rock there might still be potential for you to be playing too loose pre-flop. Snorbolus on 8. Dec 2003 20:04 Banning wrote: > i kinda meant that after you consider the rake there are hands that are break even. those > are the ones i was referring to. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: "Wild Man" vs. "Tight Agressive", PairTheBoard, 8. Dec 2003 20:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| imo, the ideal for profitabilty is Tight Agressive play with a Wild Man Image. I suspect Mike Caro is the master at pulling this off. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: "Wild Man" vs. "Tight Agressive", DallasPokerFan, 9. Dec 2003 08:54 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| IMHO, there is no global "optimal" way to play. And this is one of the great things about poker. The strategy is a paper-scissors-rock thing meaning that, for every strategy a player uses, there's a counter-strategy that can beat it ... not to mention a good run of cards. The great players, I think, are the ones who can sniff out what another player is doing quickly and use the right counter-strategy effectively. That's why, I think, poker is more of a people-game than a card game. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|