Is just playing tight solid ABC poker enough? I wonder if you just sit down in todays online games and play a solid game can you win ? Seems one day I play tight one day loose .. And nobody can answer ... Is there a book or article or video where I could learn how to be a big winner ?

depends on the stakes. I'd say once you reach 2/4NL and above it's very difficult to be profitable from playing abc poker although you may be a breakeven player

No single article/book/video will make you a big winner in the tougher games. It takes study and practice.

Paul is right, no single book can teach you how to win. It takes hard work and a lot of time for most players. If you already have the basics down, and like to study, try Selbrede's "The Statistics of Poker". From that book, it appears that about 32% of all players are "winners", but most of them very slightly. For those players with the most played hands, 65% were winners. (This was for online NL100 full ring, pre-shutdown. I think it may be harder now.)

I am not a pro, but . . .

NLH Competition is Difficult

Seems like these days there are an awful lot of players who have at least a decent knowledge of the game, which makes it challenging to routinely find good tables - especially online. The higher stakes games (live and online) are generally more challenging of course.

Please don't bother telling me about all the donks that you (and I do not mean the OP here) crush in your local casino. First, you will almost certainly be glossing over plenty of big losses. You aren't that good and your opponents aren't that bad. And if they are, then your game is not sustainable.

I have no real evidence to support the claim that NLH is not beatable enough for most folks to make a living, but if you listen to interviews on CardPlayer and PokerNews, you will hear pros complain about this problem. No Limit Hold'Em has gotten harder and is getting still harder.

Small Margins on Large Bankrolls

Online, it appears to me that legit pros are mostly living off slightly +EV margins using huge bankrolls. That is, a slightly positive ROI can be lucrative if you are applying it to a massive bankroll. Similarly, online it is possible to play for low stakes (against presumably poor players) with a significantly positive ROI. That strategy can (allegedly) result in significant profits if you play many tables at once.

Chasing the NLH Frontier

The most profitable scenario is to be a knowledgeable player in a game that others are still learning. Hence many of the nosebleed players are currently in Macao. Eventually they will move on from there as the suckers either wise up (and quit) or develop some skills. Similarly certain pros flooded into Florida a few years ago when high stakes action was legalized there - because there were wealthy new players joining the game.

So you could chase the NL Hold'Em frontiers (like Macau) in search of new players. But that is not really an option for most of us.

Emerging Games

Alternatively, I suppose you could study hard to bone up on emerging games like Badeucey, Badacey, or whatever. But obviously it needs to be an emerging game which is actually being spread where you play or which will soon be spread there. In many locations, the emerging game could easily be a game which is not all that new - i.e. in many areas Omaha is not commonly played and can be highly lucrative (if you can get a game together).

The World Series of Poker

I think there are a number of non-NLH tournaments at the WSOP where the field of players is actually surprisingly poor on the whole. I may get seriously flamed on this one, but here's my theory: Many of the unusual tournaments spread at the WSOP are games which are either seldom spread or are at least seldom spread as a tournament. Consequently, few players are actually knowledgeable about how to play No Limit Deuce to Seven Lowball, let alone how to play it as a tournament game. I just picked that example at random and it may well not be a good one, but my point remains that there are some WSOP tournaments that are beatable.

However, no matter what WSOP tournament you focus on, it would be unrealistic to think that you can just waltz out of there with a bracelet or even a cash. But I think it is conceivable that a careful study of the WSOP schedule and a careful study of selected games could earn you a living. Or it could simply cost you a lot of money if you happen to run bad.

Conclusion

I don't know who first said it, but it's more true now than ever before: "Poker is a tough way to make an easy living." For well over 99% of players, making a living by playing poker is simply an unrealistic goal. I am not telling you to give up on poker, though. I am merely suggesting that having a job AND playing poker is the most realistic scenario for all but the very best and luckiest of players.

How do I pm someone on these comments seems there is no option 4 me would like to ask some questions , Thanks for all the replies

I believe you have to make a certain number of posts before you are granted the ability to send private messages.

Click on the userid to the left of that person's post. A drop down menu will appear and it should include "Send a Private Message."

When I do that to your userid, it does not offer that option which must be because of the issue Paul Valente mentioned.

TIght aggressive ABC poker was a strategy developed to beat a meta game that really doesn't exist anymore (not as much as it once did). Against loose passive callers the TAG strat is still great.

Poker strategies follow a non-linear hierarchy. Let me explain; To beat a very aggressive and loose (maniac) you should call more and bet/raise less often. To beat a calling station, loose passive player, you should play tight but aggressive being selective with the hands you play but playing them aggressively. Against a tight player you should open up and play a loose and aggressive strategy. Its almost like rock paper scisors. TAG>STATION>AGGRO>TAG>etc,etc

Tight aggressive play is great against players who call too much and don't bet/raise enough. In the good ol days (say circa 2006 and prior) this was a pretty good strat. If you could (in 06) play mostly TAG strat and still be able to adjust to the maniacs by temporarilly shifting towards a more loose passive strat then you had, pretty much, the NUT strat for that meta-game.

Now days there are as many TAGs as Calling Stations and almost as many LAGs/Hyper Lags/Maniacs. So, while it is still important to have a good TAG foundation, mostly that will help you stay around break even while you determine what kind of players you're up against and shift into a gear that will best exploit that/those players styles.

Donovan, I think those are some very wise words.

I thank you very much.

BTW, I have spent some time talking with OP on the phone and in private message and I just want to say on his behalf that he is much better at poker and more knowledgeble than his posts make him sound. I think he really just hates to type. He, like myself, learned the game years ago (I'm 34 and he's a year older, so we are Poker Dinosaurs) in the 03-07 years, especially online, many players would call EP raises with any two suited cards and any ace. Many players used the following strat "I see a paint card in my hand = I see a flop" and they would stack off with top pair ANY kicker with such regularity that a tight aggro strat was just SOOOOOO GOOOOD!!!!!! and to boot, the same players that would call EP raises with A5o and stack off on a flop of ATJ, call three streets with bottom pair, and chase overcards like they were chasing straight flush draws would also fold to 1/2 pot bet any time they missed the flop completely.

In 04, if you raised preflop and bet the flop with AK on J82 you would take it down 2/3 of the time, the other 1/3 of the time you could just check it down unless you hit your A or K on the turn/river and then value bet it and get paid off.

So, I understand his plight. Everyone online started doing something detrimental to us old school TAGs,... they started trying to win!

So, to any old school TAGs out there I just want to let you know that I am living breathing proof that you can turn it around and get back to winning. Its not gonna be like it was I mean, its nothing like it was.

The trends change, the styles change, players get more informed, and the meta game changes, but the math doesnt change. The need for patience, hand reading, composure, concentration, etc..they're still the same. Keep at it circa 06 TAGs, it's not a lost cause. Just be flexible and keep studying!

I would say that classic TAG strategy will still be +EV against loose-passive LHE players, but finding games that have plenty of such players is pretty difficult outside the Las Vegas Strip. I don't play much NLHE, but I think even on the LV Strip (ie even in games with lots of tourists) 1-2 NL games are not terribly passive. But neither 1-2 nor 2-4 are a way to make a living. Online, all forms of Hold'em are quite tough - except perhaps at micro-stakes.

So are you playing much more LAG now?