Tight and Aggressive...

[Terminator]

I imagine that if you were to ask a poker player for a basic way to play a game, most of them would tell you to play tight, and be aggressive. Well, in a game I played last night I took this to the extreme. 8 players at the table, with a starting stack of 4000 chips (freeze-out N/L) and blinds at 25/50 for 30 mins, 50/100 for 30 mins, 75/150 for 30 mins etc.
Now I play a lot of these games, and most of them will last between 4 and 5 hours, with only 8 players (normaly more) I expected it to last for about 3 1/2 hours. I was dealt rubbish for the entire game, and was folding every hand. 1 of the players, on the other hand was playing everything, and hitting everything too! I folded every single hand until there were 3 of us left and I was the short stack. I went all in on the button to pick up the blinds (both folded), then the chip leader had the other player all-in, and won. Next hand I was so short I went all-in, and got rivered! But this has to be a perfect example of playing tight aggressive, the whole game was over in 1 hour 15 mins and I only played 2 hands and took 2nd place!
Craziest game I have ever played......

[Matty H]

I tend to play a very tight game. That doesn't mean I'm afraid to bet when I have the cards, but I do tend to pick premium hands early in a tourney if it's a freezeout. I play a lot more aggresively later on and often get respect of what may ultimately be better hands, simply because I've been noticed only playing premiums all evening.

Doesn't always work, but no method's fool proof

[The Philosopher]

What do you think about some othe things Doyle Bruson says then - e.g. "great poker players play the other players - cards are just a distraction" or "good players don't wait on good cards"? I understand where both of you are coming from but what fun is it sitting for an hour and a half playing 2 hands?

Someone else I read reckoned that it is good to vary your play and to make it as random as possible he would make a rule for the evening e.g. play the first pocket face you get and play it to the end every time thereafter. They qualified this by your position and other bets before you. But it is interesting to make a moderate rule that takes you to the turn and see how often it pays off for you e.g anything suited or anything one off connected.

[Matty H]

I agree with your point about playing the player, but I was talking primarily about heading into a game. You can't get enough knowledge to start playing a player until the game has been going a while and betting patterns are established in your mind

There are so many variations on tactics. All of them work some of the time. None of them work all of the time. I guess it comes down to what is comfortable for the individual and what he/she feels works best for them.

It's certainly a topic that could be discussed for hours with no one being definatively right or wrong

[trustme]

I think the amount of time i've spent playing online has ruined a lot of my live play, online you can be tight and aggressive, play only strong hands and as long as you get enough chips from the hands that you choose to play then you can make the final table and then change gears and play a lot looser.
the other plus point of playing this way online is that its not very often that you end up on a table with people who have played against you a lot and will know how you play.

Live you have to mix things up, if you only play strong cards it can be hard to get action.

[pokerdave]

I'm reading Super System just now - well the NL Holdem section anyway.

I think I've picked up quite alot of good advice but not enough yet to form a system of any description.

I've liked the book but Doyle only seems to talk about the hands where he's raising, re-raising, going all-in, etc. Very rarely mentions laying a hand down. Surely, the hands you decide not to play are every bit as important as the ones you do go with?? At one point, he even talks about raising where he's hoping to catch a card that will give him a draw?!?!

Who am I to question him, I know, but I just can't see how you can play so aggressively all the time and not get broke sooner or later. I haven't seen much of Doyle playing live but it would be very interesting to see how he puts into practice some of theories in the book.

[The Philosopher]

He does go broke and from what I have read it was a frequent occurance. I think it is only since he had the security of a few million and income from appearance, books, sponsorship etc that he has been saved from brokeness. He talks about Chip Reese and a few others forming a sort of informal loan society. I had assumed that having played in excess of 50 years he just gets bored every now and again and thing "let's try this just to see what happens" much the same as a golfer trying a new club or changing his swing.