There may be some definitional mismatch here.

I define a good loose aggressive player as an appropriately aggressive player who is willing to play a somewhat wider range of hands preflop. She is willing to accept lower EV hands in order to play more pots against V's with lesser skills and for the other benefits of including them in her range.

A good TAG is an appropriately aggressive player who is foregoing these additional hands and playing a tighter, stronger range preflop. He is playing fewer hands but at higher EV for each one for the benefits that this brings.

Both players are adjusting their postflop play appropriately for their style. For example, the TAG is more likely to be able to run a bluff because of his stronger range and image, while the LAG is more likely to get thinner value because of her perceived weaker range.

Neither a good LAG nor a good TAG is stupidly aggressive and neither is making foolish calldowns.

Both good LAGs and good TAGs should be seeking to exploit V's play, while falling back on more balanced play when exploitable mistakes are not present (or haven't been determined). There is nothing inherently LAG about seeking to bluff V off a likely weak range. Indeed, I would suggest that a TAG that doesn't do that is less aggressive than he should be.

I think a good player (it doesn't matter whether LAG or TAG) is not necessarily putting 66 in H's range. While a good player will realize that 66 and TT are roughly the same hand in this spot, he or she will also realize that very few LLSNL players think like that and so the population of H's is much more likely to take a stab with TT than with 66.

A player that considers calling with TT in V's spot is simply making a bad decision IMO. That's not LAG or TAG; it's just bad.

I think sometimes LAG is used as shorthand for "bad, but aggressive" while TAG is used to mean "good". I think there are good LAGs and bad LAGs, just as there are good TAGs and bad TAGs.

Oh, and I agree a good LAG isn't putting a J at the bottom of H's range. And anyone who puts a J at the bottom of the range and then decides to bluff H off that range is, um, confused IMO.

Rather than getting caught up in labels:

This says to me "plays the players; good at sniffing out weakness; aggressive". This doesn't equal "good at technical aspects of poker".

The problem here is that under the assumption that villain has a decent read on Hero's range and that, Hero's range being strong, he's not going to try to bluff him off it, the number of combos he could plausibly play this way is tiny (89ss, T9ss, perhaps QTss or KTss).

Therefore, it's just much more likely that one of our assumptions is wrong. Perhaps Villain doesn't have that great a read on Hero's range here. Or, given the number of folds advocated ITT, maybe he has accurately diagnosed Hero as a guy he can get to fold anyway. I tend to think it's a combination of the two.

I agree with your definitions. Well stated.

I am curious your comment about J not being the bottom of hero's range. Hero's has a perceived image that is tight possibly weak/tight per the op. Do we expect v to give him underpairs and bluffs just because he was checked to? H is still first in after v's flop check and while there is a potential fd the field is still uncapped as they checked to the pfr or have yet to act.

I'd be interested on you expanding a bit on that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No RR pre tends to deny KK+ and QQ to a lesser extent; I'm sharply discounting them.

The flop has two to a flush. With six people in the hand, I don't think H is betting only half the pot with 2P or a set. What if another spade rolls off? So disappointing. Even if no one has the flush, it'll kill the action. In any case, H has no 2P (J4, J2, 42) unless our read is way off.

So, overpairs are unlikely; 2P is very unlikely; a set would bet larger OTF. A jack fits the action perfectly. Something like QJs calls the small raise pre, hits the flop and doesn't want to give a free card to 5 opponents, but also doesn't want to build a big pot. I don't think a flush draw is likely to bet at all here. With four people behind him a bet has too much chance to be raised, which would trash the odds for the draw. And the bet is less likely to buy a free card because H is in poor position.

So I think H has a J or a combo draw including the J. It's not quite right to say a J is the top of his range because that would technically be a combo flush draw with the J, but there aren't very many of those.

I misunderstood what you meant. I agree hero range is mostly Jx. I don't think v can completely discount sets but I get it re: flop sizing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Agreed sets are discounted but not eliminated. Also, as usual, we have to add some fudge factor (some of which will be hands better than I expect).

It's possible he calls my flop bet with his entire range if he thinks he's god or views me as a spot. Definitely not shoving my hand though.

It was a well sized bet imo. Could be setting himself a nice price for his bluff (or 2 bluffs) or trying to keep me in.

Lots of flushes in my range, but feedback itt suggests my perceived range has a lot fewer.

Negative actually

Confused by the above. Are you saying Jx isn't the bottom of my range? I could have some AQ but that's it. I wouldn't bet 99 when 4 players haven't revealed the strength of their hand in no foldem holdem.

My apologies; I've been confusing when discussing top and bottom of range.

I think your range consists almost entirely of J. There's a small chance you have QQ or a set and a small chance you have something like a smaller PP or a FD. There's some chance you have a combo draw.

So, no, I don't think is the very best hand you could have, nor do I think it's the very worst hand you could have. I misspoke in using top or bottom.

I think Js make up the majority of your range. When I'm constructing ranges, I'm not so concerned with how good V's best hand is, nor how bad the worst hand is, and more concerned with how many hands are in the "stacking off" category and how many are in the "folding to sufficient pressure" category. I was really answering whether you had many hands in the former category rather than the actual top/bottom question. I appreciate that was confusing.

To fix that:
Top of range: set (unlikely)
bottom of range: FD (unlikely)
Most of range: J

I think you're unlikely to be willing to stack off here. If the third flush card comes, it's more likely to scare you than to have made you the flush. You might even drop a set to a big enough bet in that case.

All IMO, natch.

Curious about this, since it puts a big flaw in my hand reading. I would have thought leading out a half PSB with a FD here and five other people in the hand wouldn't be a good move: some chance it will get raised and only a small chance it will either win the hand or make it significantly easier to win the hand later. Perhaps I'm wrong about that.

In any case, is that something you would often do with a FD here?

Yeah for me this is due the the very multiway-ness and the tight/weaktight perceived image stated in op.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All or nearly all of my flush draws have at least an overcard. I would usually bet them here, but I can see now that villain likely sees it differently.

For me, his flop ck on J24 just removes too much of his air that I don't want to keep TPGK in my calldown range on this turn with this much stack behind for the river. Too frequently, his hands that added some equity on the turn would have otherwise bet flop>ck-c considering he's been in steamroll mode all night. He'll always have a few hands that do this worse than Kj, but I don't interpret his range as trash that just backdoored equity and wants to price it right with a two-way turn donk, it looks like an exploitable narrower/valuey range that doesn't want a ck-back, and I don't need to bluff catch deep because of it.
I'm not "getting monstered" realeasing against his unintentionally strong/wonky line.

Ironically, the worse LAG he is, the more bluffs he'll have in his range. Even with the "small" bet on the turn, he's set it up so that on the river you'd be getting over 2:1 to call a shove. Looks like a classic suck bet (if he's good) that he hopes you'll have to call the shove on the river due to "pot odds." He's bluffing some of the time here, but not enough to justify a call based on the further information you provided.

Lots of great input, thanks. I think it's close, but if I were to do it over again, I'd call and call brick rivers. But in game I folded and villain did not show.