To start, I’d like to apologize beforehand if this post is repetitive to the site. Because of my infrequency when it comes to participating on 2+2, at times my input can likely come off as uninformed or out of tune with current posts/trends. Nonetheless, despite my novelty here in terms of posting, I still spend a great deal of time reading and playing, so I’m not completely misguided. I still believe my opinion and input has merit.

Nevertheless, recently I’ve read multiple posts on 2p2 that seem to be overly concerned with the topic of LAG (loose-aggressive) play. Not saying that this topic isn’t important, but I think many of the posts I’ve read have been too focused on this style, and its means of exploiting NL full-ring players. While I do agree with some viewpoints that LAG play can often be the root of maximum EV overall in our sessions, I ultimately think that many posters are bloating its advantages, and becoming more obsessed with hand selection and FPS than focusing on a more essential exploit; aggression.

For those of us who have spent a considerable amount of time playing full-ring and are successful, you likely comprehend that our style and hand selection should almost exclusively become a product of table conditions. In the simplest of examples, we’re playing looser when our table is nitty & passive, and tighter if our table is full of maniacs. However, what I’ve witnessed many posters being concerned with (particularly newer visitors), are tables comprised of experienced regulars, or players who would be considered a hybrid of sorts. These tables are most common, and while it may be tougher to boast a high win-rate, they’re still very beatable. But in order to do so, in my opinion, you need to be more aggressive and perceptive of your peers.

Whether you play TAG or LAG is somewhat irrelevant. Understanding our opponents’ frequencies and ranges are what we should be paying attention to after we’ve mastered “ABC Poker”. I.E. If we see a reg raise 66 from UTG in full-ring with a standard 100bb stack, we now always need to mentally or physically note this information for range analysis later. With information like this, we can now better calculate our hot/cold equity easily with a hand such as AJo, once we note the UTG’s opening range. 66+, ATs+ or even KJs can now become viable parts of their UTG opening range just by noting one hand they’ve opened with. Once we know this, we’ve now already gained an exploit on our opponent with little to no change in most play styles.

Upon gathering more information on villains, I believe there aren’t nearly enough 2p2ers who are aggressive enough, and truly test a villain once they’ve dissected their range. Ultimately, if you are accurate with putting your opponents on ranges, you should be able to exploit their basic tendency of folding too often or folding too little, one of the simplest methods for gaining an edge. I apologize if I’m incorrect, but rarely in the low-stakes forums do I view threads that comprise of full-fledged range analysis and decision-making. Not that it’s even always necessary, but it’s somewhat sparse even in the more uncommon and thought-provoking threads. While these do happen sometimes, instead, more often I find replies are littered with one-liners and theoretical suggestions. Posters like dgi do get credit for having a thought process, and nearly everyone who is trying to find exploits in a tough game needs to worry more about making the right choice in a particular spot, than whether or not a particular style is more beneficial.

I used aggression as my thesis, because I feel that being aggressive is ultimately the root behind the current LAG obsession. You view someone raise J7s, they bang the dreaded hidden two pair, and then stack villains left and right with regularity. As a TAG or NIT you wish you could do that, then naturally hit the forums to find out what works. But it’s not even particularly the LAG’s hand selection (which is their trademark distinction) that got them paid in the first place. It was the fact that they’ve raised 3 times in each of the past 4 orbits, and now all of their opponents believe they have to wait for the nuts to exploit them. It’s their willingness to get involved that makes them tough to play against. No matter what your style of play is, you NEED to be persistent and aggro to get paid. And if you’re good at decision-making and ranges, you can become even MORE aggressive when you know an opponent is weak, even when you don’t have the nuts. People will begin to think you’re LAG (which is what everyone wants), even when you’re not – you’re simply just more intelligent and better than them. The great NL full-ring players all exhibit this skill regardless of style -- you need to put your big boy pants on, learn the game and your opponents thoroughly, and execute to increase your EV.

Worry less about pre-flop guidelines – there shouldn’t be a rigid set of hands you need to play in order to be successful. Once you’ve become proficient, success merely becomes a product of game flow, comprehension, and other meta-game components. Try to feel comfortable and content with knowing that you know way more about your opponents than they know about you. If you can do this, you’ll rarely hover on hand selection or play style ever again.

That doesn't mean they're good at all, it's easier to get a high win rate at these tables. I look around the room to see if the reg-calling stations are playing, I don't know why you think it's more difficult.

I agree, although I don't think anyone plays a certain style all the time. I was a tight-passive when I started and now can 3bet steal, the cards really don't matter sometimes when you know the 3bet is taking it down.

I feel like you're contradicting yourself. Why are you going to gather tons of information and know a range exactly, just to ignore it and apply pressure? The more information you know, the less blind pressure should ever be applied. Betting when you know you'll take it isn't aggression, it's making the right play that's going to win the hand. "Putting your opponent to a decision for all his chips" was getting old about 10 years ago.

Again, I don't what you're trying to say. If you just want to be the most aggressive guy at the table, go ahead, I think it's still profitable, but it doesn't make use of information obtained.


So I don't totally know what you're point was. Sometimes you want to have the perfect information to put into the stove. Other times you want to be KGB raising that first hand of the HU match vs Damon. But those are my thoughts.