Tournament Play Style Vs Cash Game Play Style

[TB17 0]

Ok you are gettin confused with what I said. I didn't say TAG people CANNOT be successful, I'm just saying it is not as successful as it once was and will not be as successful as a LAG player int he long tun.To answer your Qs:1) Yes Harrington did FT a WPT event, and many TAGs DO make FTs, but do they win? Winning is more important then cashing.2) Many of the good TAG players (I considered myself a succsesful one at low limit tournaments), are recently switching to a more volatile LAG style. However, there will always be enough bad and weak players to make it profitable.3) I think that LAG doesnt necesarrily crush the TAGs, in the end, it almost ALWAYS will comedown to who wins the races. The thing is, most TAG players do not accumulate enough chips to fade the variance of races, and usually bust after at least 2 big races. I FTed a tournament last night on stars, where I was 0/5 in Races. The reason why I was able to stay was because I raised so many pots and outplayed them at the flop. Sometimes it's just not meant to be, but the point is I gave myself the chance to win by pressing the action, not by waiting to "drop the hammer" or "rope-adope" or whatever.Tight players have trouble accumulating chips.The goal of a tournament should not be survival but to accumulate. Otherwise you pretty much have to hope you can win the races.4) I don't get it. next.5) the LAG players bomb out or win. If you want to win last longer bets or cash in tourneys for the rest of your life, then TAG is graet. However, if you want to WIN them, you have to take shots early, or just be a sick luckbox.6) I dunno. Depends on the players. Evaluate them and choose which style works. I wouldnt be afraid to mix up with a maniac, and you shouldnt' either.

[copernicus 0]

Ok you are gettin confused with what I said. I didn't say TAG people CANNOT be successful, I'm just saying it is not as successful as it once was and will not be as successful as a LAG player int he long tun.

The jury is still out on that. A lot of "LAG" players who have been successful are just bad players who got lucky. Robert Varkonyi comes to mind. Also, LAG dominates right now because they are more active and with so many awful players in the big tourneys due to the poker boom, they have a better chance of picking up the dead money.Once equilibrium is reached as players improve and the growth of the game slows down, TAG will become effective again.

[SlackerInc 0]

1) Yes Harrington did FT a WPT event, and many TAGs DO make FTs, but do they win? Winning is more important then cashing.2) Many of the good TAG players (I considered myself a succsesful one at low limit tournaments), are recently switching to a more volatile LAG style. However, there will always be enough bad and weak players to make it profitable.3) I think that LAG doesnt necesarrily crush the TAGs, in the end, it almost ALWAYS will comedown to who wins the races. The thing is, most TAG players do not accumulate enough chips to fade the variance of races, and usually bust after at least 2 big races. 4) I don't get it. next.5) the LAG players bomb out or win. If you want to win last longer bets or cash in tourneys for the rest of your life, then TAG is graet. However, if you want to WIN them, you have to take shots early, or just be a sick luckbox.

(1) I would be very very happy FTing a WPT event. That would be more money than I would otherwise see in the next decade or so! I wouldn't cry too many tears over not having taken the title.(2) I don't have much bankroll at this point (see #1, LOL), so "more volatile" would not serve me well. Obviously for those in different situations, it well could work great for them.(3) That's a strong, logical point, for sure.(4) Here's an example of Dawkins' ESS theory. Imagine a species of monkey that suffers from tick infestations. They can't reach their back to pick all of them off, so they take turns grooming each other. Only a subgroup within the monkey race doesn't bother returning the favour (and thus wasting time they could be spending breeding, eating, etc.). This is a kind of selfish, cheating ESS that works well for them, as long as there are only a few of them and there are lots of "suckers" out there. But since they have an advantage over the other monkeys, their numbers increase, until pretty soon almost all the population is the "selfish" type. The ticks mess them up pretty good, though, and their numbers drop. Meanwhile small groups of "suckers" here and there are able to rebound and fill in the gap. But once their numbers get large enough, the "selfish" monkeys get an advantage again, and the equilibrium bounces back and forth. I was wondering if perhaps something like that might go on with poker, with LAG players picking off pots and blinds profitably from TAG players, until the TAG players get rarer and the LAG have fewer tight targets to prey on...etc.(5) I would have no problem cashing in tourneys the rest of my life. As long as I'm making money my pride can handle it.

[copernicus 0]

(4) Here's an example of Dawkins' ESS theory. Imagine a species of monkey that suffers from tick infestations. They can't reach their back to pick all of them off, so they take turns grooming each other. Only a subgroup within the monkey race doesn't bother returning the favour (and thus wasting time they could be spending breeding, eating, etc.). This is a kind of selfish, cheating ESS that works well for them, as long as there are only a few of them and there are lots of "suckers" out there. But since they have an advantage over the other monkeys, their numbers increase, until pretty soon almost all the population is the "selfish" type. The ticks mess them up pretty good, though, and their numbers drop. Meanwhile small groups of "suckers" here and there are able to rebound and fill in the gap. But once their numbers get large enough, the "selfish" monkeys get an advantage again, and the equilibrium bounces back and forth. I was wondering if perhaps something like that might go on with poker, with LAG players picking off pots and blinds profitably from TAG players, until the TAG players get rarer and the LAG have fewer tight targets to prey on...etc.

In the poker situation it isnt LAGs picking on TAGs as much as they are sylistically better positioned to pick on a new population of weak players. The new population will eventually become extinct and things will return to the old equilibrium.another factor in recent LAG success has been the sheer numbers moving to that style. There are so many of them, and luck is large enough factor, that a larger population is more likely to have more survivors. The same TAG players keep on showing up at the FTs, while LAG players come and go. I dont know if there is enough of a history of "Players of the Year" or similar rankings available, but Id expect different LAG players flash in and out at the top, while the same TAG players are just below them year after year.Eg, wheres Gus Hansen been for a couple of years? Even Phil Ivey has fallen back a bit.I havent watched Mizrachi much, but he is arguably the most consistent tournament player around...what is his predominant style? Does his nickname fit?Chip Reese is named as often as anybody as the best in the world..he is certainly TAG. Hellmuth has a bunch of bracelets...TAG. Doyle...probably middle of the pack stylewise.

[Outlaw4033 0]

Maniacs are tough to play against. Harrington has a couple of strategies against them...the Hammer, and something else. I dont run into them often in tourneys.

Harrington's two strategies for dealing with maniacs are 'The Hammer' and the 'Rope-A-Dope' which is basically slow-playing.

[shpaget 0]

Anyone who knows me knows that I dislike Harrington's books and I think that his style is slowly dying (When was the last time you saw a tight aggressive player win a major tournament?) and I guess if that's what you are comfortable with, then I'm not gonna try and change it. But poker always changes, it was optimal before to be tight and play good cards, but with aggression winning championships, it's gonna be natural that people will shift to that style.

Well, Hellmuth won his 10th bracelet last summer - he's TAG.Cloutier won his 6th the summer before...he's TAG.Chan...TAG.Sexton..TAG.When differentiating between loose aggressive and tight aggressive, remember that the key word is aggressive....aggression is what is required (especially in NL)...tight and loose are simply styles geared to a person's character and quality....aggression, in the correct degree, and in the correct place, is the key.Now, I have NEVER seen a passive player (tight or loose) win a major tournament.

[copernicus 0]

Now, I have NEVER seen a passive player (tight or loose) win a major tournament.

QFT.....Except some interpret PF min-raises and limps as passive, which ain't necessarily so, if they buy you a lot of flops and if they buy you a lot of calls on monsters that wouldn't have even played against a full raise.That to me is the essence of small ball ("LAG") vs TAG, not whether you keep pots small without big hands...thats true of both styles, and why I was trying to clarify the semantics earlier in the thread.

[SlackerInc 0]

another factor in recent LAG success has been the sheer numbers moving to that style. There are so many of them, and luck is large enough factor, that a larger population is more likely to have more survivors. The same TAG players keep on showing up at the FTs, while LAG players come and go. I dont know if there is enough of a history of "Players of the Year" or similar rankings available, but Id expect different LAG players flash in and out at the top, while the same TAG players are just below them year after year.

This is just what I was wondering about in one of the questions I posed earlier. To offer an admittedly extreme analogy, if you compete against enough monkeys with enough typewriters (or should I say chips/cards), some of them will do well. But what would be really interesting is to see who has the most tournament earnings over say the last three years.

[Brunswick14 0]

I could be wrong here, but i think a lot of the reason we've been seeing a lot of LAG players winning on tv lately is because those tournaments are geared towards the loose aggressive style. The blinds increase faster so there will be more action for television.

[copernicus 0]

This is just what I was wondering about in one of the questions I posed earlier. To offer an admittedly extreme analogy, if you compete against enough monkeys with enough typewriters (or should I say chips/cards), some of them will do well. But what would be really interesting is to see who has the most tournament earnings over say the last three years.

I think that would be Mizrachi.

I think that would be Mizrachi Cunningham

FMP

[hblask 1]

Very interesting way to look at it! But by "get a good flop", you mean something better than TPTK or even an overpair, right? Seems like you'd need a set at least (on a rainbow, non-straightening, non-paired board) to be confident. Or do you think that is too tight? I guess I don't have the bankroll to risk my whole stack with less.BTW, HBlask, I will be wearing a Primus T-shirt at that tourney (unless I forget, LOL) a week from today if you decide to come out for it. If you've been crushing the cash games you should have the bankroll to play a $200 tourney!

If I see a true maniac, TPTK is usually enough for me to take it to the end if nobody else is in the hand. A flopped set isn't even a question. There've been days where this has cost, but overall playing aggressively when you get top-pair and even a K or Q kicker is pretty profitable against maniacs. I may one hand per hour, but double up on it.

[hblask 1]

In the LAG vs TAG discussion, it is also important to remember that the tightest of the pros is still more LAG than almost anyone you'll run into in a regular tournament populated by non-pros. You'll run into people who are looser but not aggressive, but to the pros, TAG means something different than to someone like me.

[copernicus 0]

In the LAG vs TAG discussion, it is also important to remember that the tightest of the pros is still more LAG than almost anyone you'll run into in a regular tournament populated by non-pros.

I disagree. While it may appear that they are looser from the edited hands on TV thats a distorted view, since their actions are based on particular reads and circumstances, and you have no idea how far apart most of those hands are.The big name TAG players that I have played against or have both written and gotten TV exposure, ( Harrington, Lederer, Duke, Gordon, Hellmuth, Sklansky, Bloch, Williamson and Gowen come to mind), play just as tight as advertised. They are definitely more aggressive, of course.

[SlackerInc 0]

I disagree. While it may appear that they are looser from the edited hands on TV thats a distorted view, since their actions are based on particular reads and circumstances, and you have no idea how far apart most of those hands are.The big name TAG players that I have played against or have both written and gotten TV exposure, ( Harrington, Lederer, Duke, Gordon, Hellmuth, Sklansky, Bloch, Williamson and Gowen come to mind), play just as tight as advertised. They are definitely more aggressive, of course.

I wonder if hblask was referring to the fact that non-pros may not understand how to play when the blinds get large relative to the stacks.Speaking of TV poker, I've been really enjoying the PPT more than any televised poker I'd previously seen. Part of it of course is watching all the pros go at each other, but I also feel like the producers give a better sense of the true flow of the game instead of just showing the fireworks hands. Also, they put up a lot of very informative stats on the screen. The one that came to mind reading this was IIRC something like "Dan Harrington has only played 1 of the last 23 hands".

[copernicus 0]

I wonder if hblask was referring to the fact that non-pros may not understand how to play when the blinds get large relative to the stacks.Speaking of TV poker, I've been really enjoying the PPT more than any televised poker I'd previously seen. Part of it of course is watching all the pros go at each other, but I also feel like the producers give a better sense of the true flow of the game instead of just showing the fireworks hands. Also, they put up a lot of very informative stats on the screen. The one that came to mind reading this was IIRC something like "Dan Harrington has only played 1 of the last 23 hands".

I havent seen it yet. I'll have to look for it, because WPT and WSOP coverage has gotten old at this point.

[SlackerInc 0]

I havent seen it yet. I'll have to look for it, because WPT and WSOP coverage has gotten old at this point.

Yeah, the nice thing is that unlike the WPT they feature eight hours of coverage (four two hour programmes) of each tournament. And both the WPT and PPT are covered better than ESPN's WSOP stuff, in my opinion.My only complaint about the PPT is that though Mark Seif and his partner provide very good analysis, there are many times when the players themselves are having what seem like very interesting discussions of strategy that I would really like to hear.