I hate to belabor the point about 84s, but since it's the hand that OP tossed out as an example, I don't mind running with it a little bit just to demonstrate the point that while I agree with the general principle of playing a lot of hands in position:

1) I prefer to have better cards to do it.
2) I prefer to have the betting initiative.

I just don't think it's worth it to try to pick on the nits by constantly putting bad money in the pot preflop in the hopes of flopping bottom two pair and getting it all in on the flop as a 3:1 favorite when the other person overplays an overpair.

That seems like a losing proposition in the long term.

Well he starts out with this:

You've got to play good post flop against the clowns, donks, horrible players and what have you. Except you can always tell when they have AA so maybe you don't have to play that good against players this easy to read and are willing to call you no matter what you bet because you play hands like 8-4s in position. Yeah that makes sense.

these are exactly the kind of hands you want to play this deep
vs a stationy passive player. not vs an aggro player, who is capable of playing back, or putting you to the tuff decisions.

yes, it does mean you want to start playing @1/2 your hands esp in position.
read the Harrington cash books, he talks about the difference between games with differant stack sizes in detail, and how they should be played.

aggression doesnt have to mean raise raise raise. a fold can be an aggressive play if you open your mind.
riverman alluded to how LAG play isnt about bludgeoning villians in the least, although it may seem that way to others.
its about villian thinking "dammit, aggressive guy called me in position, i dont know what he has, he prolly knows close to what i have, and im prolly getting this taken away unless I hit."
aggression means brainwashing them that they are the deer in the headlights, and youre the headlights.
its about creating an image, and training your villians to react to you, not the other way around.
this is where you want them, and you accomplish this by playing aggressive after the flop; not so much before the flop.
you get them to make more mistakes, give you free cards, pay you off lighter,so many perks, all by establishing psychological dominance (limon refers to 'psychological ascendancy'); so this is aggression on a whole other plane than what youre thinking if you believe that aggression translates into mindlessly going bet bet bet. this may be because you dont understand what a LAGs strategy truly is, and what they are trying to accomplish with it??

>>>a LAG benifits by keeping the pot small early in the hand, and using his hand reading, and post flop skills to out-manuever villian, or to value town him when we hit with our trash.
PF raising, 3 betting, and 4 betting goes way down in value super-deep, (its in the Harrington books, and is pretty obv, because its more about post flop play, and seeing he hand.)
Big pairs go way down in value and actually become drawing hands super deep (who is putting in 500bb w KK without a set?).
trash hands go way up in value, keeping the pot smaller until you want to make it bigger( because youve seen more than your hole cards now), goes up in value.
its pretty simple really, and its nothing new that im saying.
i thought this was standard?

My fellow mod, mpethybridge, once shared an analysis publicly of a well known micro on-line player to the forum with the that person's approval. He showed how this player was just crushing 50nl, doing virtually everything right as well as anybody playing the micros. The player had only one leak: he was playing too low.

The OP of this thread reminds me of that. Regulars will know that I preach the trinity of poker: cards, position and skill. If you have position and skill, the cards aren't necessary to win. If you have a significant post flop skill advantage over the competitors at your current level, it is time to move up, not try to hone it to squeeze a few extra BB at 1/2 or 2/5.

the problem is that when you tighten up this deep, and dont play the 84s,
they dont fear you as much, and you lose your mojo.
you begin to take on a range in their eyes thats not ATC, and thats bad.

i think you can essentially double a win rate playing good-aggro at 2/5, which is nothing to sneeze at.
the 2/5 games can be more profitable than the 5/10 games sometimes. (weaker fields)
i see pros moving down to 2/5 from higher because they know this;
guys that i wouldnt expect to see in the game.
theres pretty good money at 2/5, even though its LS,
unless you need to have a baller lifestyle?

This is gold and should go for playing period. I'm going to note this post and if I feel I'm playing to tight ill read this quote.

im talking about playing super super deep only, which rarely happens. (400 BB+)
dont apply this with 100 BB or you are toast.
tight is right w/ 100 BB.

I disagree that good aggro can double profits from good TAG, but without data it is just my opinion. I would argue that a player that is moving down from 5/10 games because they aren't "good" is moving down because they aren't the best at 5/10 and are smart enough to recognize it.

I'm talking about the overall that if you play too tight people will start to put you on a range.

I play strict ranges but that's my problem. I don't bluff raise/call with trash. I have never played 84s or 62s in my life. I play poker by the book and take zero chances. My biggest leak I play too tight.

My percentages looks like this on a regular basis if I'm not deep.

Ep, 5%

Mp,6.6%

Lp, 10%

Limp range,

Ep, 7.2%

Mp 8.4%

Lp 22.2%

How deep is deep enough? How much should everyone have before I start to open things up and get semi loosey goosey? At the card room I play in stacks are almost always shallow 60-80bb's. On a good night 2-3/ out of 8 players will have 200bb+ and the rest will be shallow. I am SO SICK of playing abc tight at this place and i'm not getting paid off like I used to.

FWIW here's something to think about. What can swing a 3 gap suited connector from the unprofitable to the profitable? It's called fold equity. OPs post basically states that the horrible live ones at $1-2 call way too much after the flop and aren't aggressive enough. That to me doesn't pass the smell test in the justification in playing hands that need fold equity (on any street) to be profitable. I suppose OP would counter that it's a matter of timing that being a good at post flop play means that you can set up the horrible live ones who call way too much by getting them to actually fold more and then getting them to call just when you make a hand with your long shot preflop hand that you played in position. But then you did notice his comment about value betting relentlessly where presumably you're showing them good enough hands. So they call him when he's got a hand that beats them, he bluffs them profitably when he doesn't, he can basically play a lot of seemingly weak hands preflop because he can do all this. This is the prescription for crushing $1-2 donks. Ok, then good luck with that but its hardly a great piece of advice. I mean its no secret that if you can get the suckers to call you when you have them beat and get them to fold when you don't that you're going to crush the suckers.

I played 62s sometime this weekend. There were 2 limpers, someone raised to $20 ($2/5), 1 caller, I look down at 62 clubs in the SB and made it $105. Everyone folded.

Every session I play there are situations pre-flop where I think in my head "hmm this is a really good spot to squeeze, if I have any suited trash here I'll probably do it" before checking my cards. And if I look down and see J7o or whatever then I fold, but I love suited trash because if you flop a flush draw you can generally barrell all-in and still have decent equity when called, and the pot will be big enough to justify playing that way.

Lots of logical fallacies in the thread but a lot of truth as well

Conditional probability means most of this is bad advice in a beginners forum though

Unless it helps show the path to enlightenment to the beginners.