Here's one approach.

I divide all poker player into three categories:
1. Skilled players.
2. Morons.
3. People who believe they are geniuses, but who in reality are morons.

Skilled players are almost always tight. The nit, in my opinion, is a form of skilled player. My strategy is to play abc, but only when I have to; and I don't expect to make much money. I play in position and always ask for a seat change if I find myself to the players right. I always try to make friends with the tag players, and to avoid direct eye contact with the nits, because it makes them uncomfortable.

Against morons, I play abc and yuk it up, a lot.

The challenge is to identify the third type, and to develop a proper psychological approach. These are the most fun.

There are a couple of clues as to their identity, although sometimes its hard.

Anyone who wears sunglasses indoors could be a 3. Anyone over 40 who wears sunglasses is definitely a 3.

Most lags are 3. (not all! Sheesh.)

People who habitually chop at a paired board are 3's, as are people who limp-raise. (people who limp call are 2's.)

Anyone who raises UTG more than once every 10 minutes, or cbets more than 90% of the time, is a 3.

3's are aggressive, but all poker players are aggressive. Nits are aggressive, they just prefer to express their aggression indirectly. 2's are aggressive, but it's all in fun. To put a finer point of it, they are engaged in a form of rowdy play that's called "reciprocal aggression," which is healthy and natural (so it is critically important to be a good loser against these players! It's never, "you sucked out on me like the pig you are.". Try this: "Brilliantly played, my son here gets the tab." If you don't have any social skills, practice this at home.)

What distinguishes 3's, I think, is the extent to which 3's are conflicted about their aggression. These are people who are unaware of their aggression because that's how their system works. Which is why they spew off chips due to aggression for its own sake. And, incidentally, it's why they wear sunglasses. More on that later.

It follows, then, that the key to unlocking the treasure chest is to piss these players off. This is the one situation at the poker table where it pays to be haughty, to roll the eyes, and to make half-muttered jokes at their expense. Here's my current approach.

1. Loudly, and slowly (as if talking to a dull child) ask how many chips they have, in between hands.
2. Look up from your iPad, say "who raised?" and if it's him say, "well then I'm in."
3. Run over them repeatedly, show down that 53 you used to bluff them off top two pair. And then on the next hand, when he calls your set down, act all surprised, like you didn't even look at your cards.
4. In fact, play at least one hand without looking at your cards. This works especially well out of the blinds, and it works whether you win or not.
5. Play as fancy as you please. Fancy plays don't work against 2's because they are oblivious, every single time you will find yourself on the river hating life. And you don't pull fancy plays against 1's. The nits aren't impressed, and under no circumstances do you want to be the object of undivided attention from a skilled player. For fancy plays, 3 is the magic number.

Thoughts appreciated. More on this later, maybe.

1's make good poker buddies, and 2's make good ATM machines. But 3's make for the most entertainment. For a skilled amateurs, it's why we play poker.

Why wouldn't you want to be to the right of a nit? They usually fold, hardly ever raise, and when they do raise, they have the goods. I want to be to the left of the LAGs.

Keeps my cbet % <90

Yeah thats usually what I want too.

If I have nits to my left, that means that my CO, HJ, and BTN are all the same.

Ugh. I was HU at the end of a MTT with a sunglass wearing 3. There were like 13bb left on the table at the start of HU and he ended up taking it down and he was so excited about finally winning his first tournament blah blah blah. It was only annoying because I wasn't going to be around the next day to play against him with his newfound confidence and expertise.

3's tilt me super hard. I generally keep to myself, but I will make a small effort to needle them, but not be a total a-hole. I don't do it because I don't like them at all (that's what a bad player would do), but I do it because generally, 3's tend to have super frail egos. They think they are genius and talk like they are the man all the time, but if they are challenged in any fashion, they feel their ego has been hurt and they need to prove a point that they are the genius that they say they are.

By needling a 3 a little bit, I have this kind of player player playing with ego and emotion. Poker has no place for ego and emotion. I do like showing bluffs against them because that usually does the trick for these types of players.

You can almost always spot a 3 as the guy who is shuffling their cards or chips very fast and making small chat with some of the players at the table. The dead giveaway is the guy who shuffles chips with both hands and is constantly looking around to see if anyone is looking.

Ugh............

Yes!

The 2's are the only people in this lineup who are psychologically normal, which is why you have to be nice to them. Otherwise, they gather up their chips and go to the craps table, where the fun people are.

The 3's are acting out something that arises in their own psyche. Your role is the villain. You must play it well! To put a finer point on it, what you identify as an ego hurt is exactly right. Normally it's called "empathic failure" and because of that, they feel rage and shame. It is important for them to fail. It's part of the narrative.

Another thing. Make it a point to call them, and only them, "sir."

LOL

Seriously, your post is complete gold!

It's funny that you mention that the 2's are the only Seemingly sane people at the table too haha. I am usually a really nice guy to people like this. It's amazing though when you see people trying to ridicule them. It's usually when a 2 wins a big pot off of a 3 by making a pretty bad play. Rather than say "nh" the 3 goes on to berate and explain why his play was mathematically incorrect. It seriously shocks me when people do stuff like this. I make an effort to compensate by being extra nice and conversational with the 2 when this happens to them. They are exactly the type of person you want playing at the table. They're like a good customer and the customer is always right.

Oh and the whole "sir" thing?! Iaefiuasndviuafnvuikjfsgjifkhsfvkhsf. I can't believe I have never thought of that, that is absolutely brilliant. I dont want to rant to everyone for an hour on why it's completely brilliant, but seriously, that is such a brilliant needle against a 3 it's ridiculous. Omg. Thank you abqdave. I'll have to "conduct some research" and report my findings.

Edit: I am seriously crying from laughter right now at how hysterically sinister, yet simple, the psychology behind the whole "sir" thing is. Especially if the 3 is under 30.

At 1-2 and 1-3 tables #2s and #3s bring money to eventully give to #1s. It is important to have #2s win from time to time so the roulette wheels and the slots don't get paid off. It is never important to let #3s win, their donations rise with each losing hand. Nice post!

One night, new casino, first hand I watched, the type 3 with sunglasses calls a large raise and immediately starts talking about how long he's been playing poker while in the hand.

The guy immediately to my left, who I've never met before tells me that this clown always starts talking and stroking his ego whenever he has a monster. Three or four times when I was heads up with him and he wasn't talking, i bet into him with total air and he folded every time. The next time I bet into him he started talking, and I folded, he showed top set, telling me "good fold, he knew I didn't have ****" etc.

Even without the monster tell, he was pretty horrible despite his sunglasses and ego, although I didn't needle him, if I see him again, I might.

Abq, this is quite funny and good. And you gave me the warm fuzzies when you said nit = good, since i prefer to nit it up and play abc (at my stake i see no other option), and i am tired of being ashamed.

One curious thing though, you only seem to acknowledge the extremes of good and awful players. What about the ones in between, which must have certain leaks?

Btw im sad to say there arent many 3s where i am. I get mostly mid aged asians who i doubt ever entertain the idea they are good.

Playing style and psychology are related but not exactly the same.

Schoonmaker discusses the psychology of 1's at fascinating lengths. In short, 1's are made, not born.

I've become interested in personality psychology, especially Kohut although as I get deeper into this I keep coming back to Melanie Klein. It's a powerful way of understanding the relationship between frustration, rage and shame, things that cause impairment in many aspects of life. Sometimes severe impairment.

We tend to rank poker players based on their level of aggression. I'm working on a theory that aggression alone does not account for the variance among poker players. I'm currently thinking of looking at three dimensions
1. Sociability, desire for fellowship or acceptance
2. Tendency to express aggression directly or indirectly
3. Degree of conflict about aggression.

My theory is that the first defines type 2. The second helps us approach tight players to distinguish the nits who fight back from the nits who will roll over and play dead. The third, I think, defines the type 3 and suggests a way of exploiting their psychology.