Hi guy,i want try learn to calculate combos.Is that will help my post flop play on cash micros?I mean if i want to play lag style is future need to know that staff?

Wat?
I think this is what you struggled to ask.
However it still makes no sense...
What do you mean by "combinatorics" or calculating combos???

http://www.thepokerbank.com/strategy...-combinations/

Your question made a lot of sense, don't worry about the other poster. Do you have money to spend or not? This matters just because i could suggest a few books to get that are pretty easy to read, but they will help you with this, ad other mathematics things for micros.

Also, nice use of vocabulary.

Combinatorics is good to understand, yes. But I'd focus on learning other things while you learn combinatorics and not just focusing on it as a single concept. Good to combine with studying things like ranges (basically) or spotwise identifying doublebarrel spots, c/r spots, etc.

It's much more useful to know when you are playing LAG (you don't really need to know the maths, just the principles), because you will be 3betting light much more etc.

Don't be in a huge rush to play a LAG style. Are you winning playing as a nit/tag?

I disagree with you there Arty - playing LAG has massively helped my postflop game by getting into some marginal situations and learning how to play them (not to mention it being a huge boost to my winrate).

Guys,i dont want start play lag right now.Yes i win NL4 playing tag but my winrate is not good.I have leaks on 3bet pots and on pots OOP.Playing tag my opponents read my hands easy and when i have a strong hand i never paid.

This!

I know when I first started playing HU I was in way over my head, but I got...if not comfortable...at least *able* to play in a much wider range of spots very quickly because I played so many hands. The financial cost of being a slight loser at 4nl is so negligible (and only until you improve as a lag) that I think it's probably worth it to loosen up even if it immediately hurts your winrate.

Also, playing more hands and raising more is just way more fun

If you have leaks they won't dissapear by switching to a looser style. If you want to stop playing with the style you do good with and switch to one you are not familiar with, it's all good. Don't expect your winrate to be better though.
It's much easier to win and master tight play than to win and master loose aggressive play, if you want to play LAG imo you should first master TAG.

Indeed. I think the usual evolution of a player is:
Loose Passive (fish) > Tight Passive (nit) > Tight aggressive (TAG) > Loose aggressive (LAG).
You've got to learn how to profit with strong hands (Broadways, pairs) before you start getting involved with suited connectors, gappers etc.
You've also got to be prepared for some wild variance when you adopt a laggier style, so it's handy to have built up a nice roll playing tag/nit before you give it a try.

Back to the question at hand...

Counting combos accuratly at the table is rare - you just dont have the time.

A good understanding, however, is key - for example. Knowing that v. can only have 3 combos of each set but can have 6 combos of each overpair will come in handy. (You should also know why this is the case - the maths is very simple once you get your head around it, but the understanding is key. Tbh combos are like odds/implied odds - you rarely need to sit their and work out your odds to any degree, but you MUST know what they mean otherwise you will be crushed at the tables - eventually you will feel things once you know how rare X hand is compared to Y hand (combos))

Eventually you will be able to look at a situation and have your mind sum it up.

But no, its optimistic at best to think you will be able to count combos all the time whilst multitabling.

off the table you should be able to count the combos of hands you beat and hands that beat you - poker blueprint has a small but decent section on this topic (Dont have the book to hand so wont copy it - if your a 6 max player, this is the nut book out there imo)

IMO

Is this a typo? If not, please explain.