I'm not sure I 100% agree with this. In a strongly loose-passive game, you probably only get to open-raise from UTG or UTG+1 and so the vast majority of your raises will be raising previous limpers or raising one limper with the expectation of multiple coldcallers. Your raising percentage will go way down and you should definitely overlimp. I think we agree on this.

The question is whether this can be called TAG. And I argue it can be - you're (a) tighter than the table, and (b) more aggressive than the table.

When someone moves from FR to 6-max, the definition of "TAG" changes with the game conditions. Why are we setting some sort of absolute range for what constitutes "TAG" play even though the composition of the table varies?

Furthermore, in the context of images, it's precisely how you APPEAR to the table that's the issue, not your reality. If everyone else is playing every hand and you're only playing 60%, then you're going to be VIEWED as tight, no matter where that falls on an absolute scale. If everyone else is limping kings and you're raising 5%, then you're going to be VIEWED as aggressive, no matter where that falls on an absolute scale.

Even with no effort put into it, it's disturbing that you're missing suited connectors. If this is truly just some weird oversight, that's fine, but it's still very weird IMO.

Since there's further discussion about ranges since you posted this, let me add that the shape of someone's range is just as important as where the boundaries are. Poor players often have very differently-shaped ranges (e.g., overvaluing 22 and other small pocket pairs while undervaluing AQo and big unsuited broadways) and as you analyze ranges, you have to keep that in mind.

There's plenty of suited connectors in there lol.

COTW on playing 22-jj please

yeah ike i don't really understand how 22-77 would fit in my game as a utg open (assuming thread is aimed at FR 100bb BI 1/2). i can kinda see it at 2/5 occasionally but even then extremely irregularly.

would love an explanation if it's not a typo or anything, since i'd otherwise have been diametrically opposed to opening those hands

This thread amuses and disappoints me.

It seems to me that OP tried to encourage people to pay more attention to their own play and be more honest with themselves. At least a dozen people got this and will likely improve from reflecting upon their own play.

Sadly, at least this many people are getting so bogged down in the details that they can't see the forest through the trees... and a full page of the thread is harping on so obvious of a typo that it's just insane. (as if anyone would open 22 but fold 44 in a given spot)


Personally, I think applying an acronym label to one's self in a strategy post is either the result of laziness, ignorance or embarrassment. If you limped ten of the last fifteen hands, or you haven't raised or 3-bet all night, go ahead and say that. You'll get better advice. Lie to your wife all you want, lying to people trying to help you is foolish, and lying to yourself is disastrous.

look, this thread really, really isn't about low pocket pairs in early position, nor is it about ranges. Like not at all. The point of this thread is that TAG means tight and aggressive and gives some general ideas for what tight and aggressive actually means. A lot of people have no idea what style they're actually playing, and a lot of people are probably losing money when they step out of a basic TAG style.

I think it's time for you to leave this thread and let silly people be silly. Your work here is done. Good job, sir.

=P

mmmmmmmm just didnt want to ignore something because i didnt understand it and figure out i have a leak later.

assumed the ranges would be a bit more precise

If used as an opening range, that is: everyone before you has folded, then they're actually pretty close IMO. People complaining about the looseness are missing out that many hands are opened or limped in front of us. In that case, different ranges are needed. Trying to cover all of these ranges is enough content for a book.

The main point is to think a bit more about how you're playing, and having reasons for your actions.

Solid effort Ikes

Everyone is harping on the tiny topics and is completely missing the big picture.

What a complete trainwreck.

I rarely give compliments to posters here, but ikestoys is one of the better posters on here and if you're going to ignore and/or criticize every little thing that may be wrong while failing to grasp the overall picture, then good luck becoming a successful player at higher limits than 1-2.

I rarely post in a thread that ikestoys has posted in, because either

A) He has posted the same thing I would have posted and my post is just then a +1.

OR

B) He has said what I wanted to say, but better.

haha pretty much. The thread has picked up steam on other topics. But there's nothing wrong with that I suppose.....it's always good to have lively discussion as long as people understand the big picture.

Surprised so many nits viewing this thread thinking omg ike posted a hand range that equals tag!

As I mentioned some pages earlier, his range was not tag, even as played with a correct 'tag' style.

But.. Important thing to note is, as others mentioned, its a useless factoid. If there was a ruleset/range you could program a computer to play and win at poker then it wouldn't be much of a game, would it...

I agree with this 100%, and to keep myself from becoming bored and playing anything but my A game I like to wait until I get both cards from the dealer before I peek and start to construct a game plan for the hand. This at least keeps me in check mentally so that I follow my same preflop game plan every time. If I catch myself peeking before I get both cards then I know I am getting anxious and I can catch myself. LOL just a random comment but it really helps me from going brain dead at the super slow LLSNL games.

LOL +1

gr8 post ike l0l i undastand everythin xDDDDD

ignore dese nubs who ask 4 help lol if dey askin 4 help dey dnt deserve it :P

sillies bein silly , ur work here is done good sir =PPPP

Would raising the following hand ranges (as a base, obv could change slightly based on table conditions) be profitable at 2/5 or is this simply too nitty:

EP (UTG through UTG+2) - AK, TT+
MP (UTG+3 through HJ) - AK/AQ, KQs, 88+
Cutoff: A9s+, ATo+, KQ, KJs, QTs+, JTs, 22+
Button: A2+ KT+, QT+, JTs, 22+

I think the above would certainly be a foundation for profitable play assuming you make reasonable decisions post flop.

I think at 2/5 you can play a wider range in EP-MP. I am certainly not folding any pocket pair first in in any position because of the implied odds most LLNL opponents offer. If you can take 22 UTG, block-raise to 3bbs and get 2-4 callers 100bb deep, why wouldnt you?? Almost nobody is attacking my block-raises and i do this with relative impunity. I get called by JJ, by AQ, even by AK sometimes, as opposed to limping and facing. 6bb raise or folding and giving up a chance to stack someone who goes too far with one-pairs. Would I play that way in a tough game? No way. At 2/5 that's been working for me. I also sometimes do this with Axs. People love to call with suited cards, and over-flushing someone in a multi way pot is very profitable. And, no, I am putting almost no value on TPWK if i hit the ace, so i am not at all worried about RIO. If i have A7s on A62r I am c/f flop. These aren't hands you need to play, but so much of LLNL is based on people playing their own hand and staying too far with 2nd best hands that they should be folding that you need to see a lot of cheap flops with hands that can flop monsters.

I also play a much wider range in CO/BTN, and i play it aggressively, but that's just me. Kxs and Qxs are my bread/butter 3-betting hands in those spots against wide opens. I also would be opening unsuited connectors in those spots. But again, this is based on being very comfortable postflop at 2/5. At 5/10 I tighten up a lot and play a range closer to the one you described although somewhat wider/more balanced. For instance, I can't have my 5/10 opponents knowing that 200bb deep my EP range never has more than one pair on 678ss. So i balance some for defense as I have more respect for my opponents. At 2/5 I don't see a need to balance, I just exploit aggressively and don't worry about being exploited until I see strong evidence of it which is very rare.

Depends on your stack size. The range is too big for 50 BB and too small for 150 BB

Very nice thread, Ikestoys.

I committed to follow the recipe during the entirety of today's session even though I'd only read the first 80 posts. It was quite liberating. I open limped NEVER. I tossed away suited aces and kings without a second thought unless CO or OTB in a multi-limpfest. I played almost no suited connectors of the spotted variety. I C-bet near to 100% of the time and second barreled often.

I was feared. I kicked their ass. I could see them prepare to fold as my hand drifted toward my chips. So sweet. Best session of the month.

flawed ranges? lol

I figured I'd resurrect this thread because I have a question that I didn't think was worth its own thread.

Is it bad to limp AQo+ from MP, UTG+1, and UTG at 1/2? I know this isn't TAG, but I also know true TAG (20/17) is not a style that should be used at this level.

It seems like such a weak passive move but I think that is the best way to play it. Regardless of the raise-size, all it takes is one caller to start the cascade of callers that put you in awful position with no fold equity.

as with everything its opponent dependent. im 99% of the time raising here, and if it goes 5 way, then we c/f missed flops. im rarely c betting against a bunch of loose passives when i miss. id never limp it. build a pot up so u can stack someone who has A4s on an ace high flop. if you miss, you lose 5 or 6bb

My image is never TAG. In fact, two sessions ago I had a guy say to me "you don't care about the money do you?" I almost hugged him- I think that's a great image to have.

TBH, I don't care about traditional TAG and LAG definitions because I think they are useless, so I use my own when I think about the game (though I don't use these definitions with other people, because that would be presumptive and irritating). In my head, however, LAG/TAG are defined as

TAG- wait for edges and push them hard
LAG- push hard, regardless of edge

To me, these are useful definitions because they don't focus on pre flop and they are flexible to adjust to table conditions. Whenever I am considering a pot, I ask the question "what is my edge here, and what would it look like to push it?" If I cannot answer that question, I fold.

This usually ends up in me playing a style people generally refer to as LAG, but in my head, I am still TAG- I am just waiting for edges and pushing them hard. If I am not pushing an edge, either because I am passing on edges or because I am pushing without them, I am playing losing poker. I find this to be a much more useful exercise and thought process than traditional definitions. And in fact, my thought process never changes, but as the edges do my play varies greatly. So many things can become an edge (cards, position, picking up of tendencies and tells, showing down a non-premium hand, etc.) and if you pass up your edges, you are leaving money on the table.

When people ask, I say I am a LAG- but in my head and heart I am a TAG and I think if I WERE a LAG as I understand it, I'd be playing losing poker.

I'm a relative beginner, so take this with a healthy grain of salt.


Comment above as to why people don't play back against maniacs - at 1/1 or 1/2, it's because people are scared. 'I don't want to bet, he might raise me; I'll just check and decide to call or not'.

The only time they do bet is when they flop trips, or on later streets, if they haz the nutz.

You'd think the maniacs at the table would understand this and would fold here...but the maniacs at my table almost *always* go busto at some point by mindlessly betting into the nits' nuts. Most hands they're c-betting and raising so fast they're not paying attention to the table around them; too busy trying to maintain this Captain Aggressive of the Table image. You can check/call flop, check/call turn and check/raise river and they will stack off every time. I see it Every. Single. Night.

At my 1/1 and 1/2 tables the LAGs win lots of small pots and lose the big pots.

Many people hate playing against aggressive maniacs. I don't mind at all - I just avoid putting myself in tough situations where I'm going to have to play a big pot with a marginal hand. Instead, I take the maniac to value town and just let them hang themselves. To do *that* you need to be patient, which IMHO is one of the biggest problems with people at the 1/1 and 1/2 games. People take a stab at balls just outside the strike zone hoping to get bat on wood and get a little blooper out behind second base. Why not just wait until a big softball gets lobbed down the heart of the plate?

Anyway - back on topic; this is an excellent thread; wish I had seen it earlier. So thanks to Ike for posting it, and thanks to TAOx for reviving it. As noted above, 'aiming for TAG but actually playing too many hands' was/has been a problem for me as well. But as I've started thinking about it in these terms, it's gotten easier. It took me a while to realize that enjoying poker isn't just about my two cards: it includes enjoying the whole experience: every hand, the reaction of the winners and losers, table banter, etc. Once I started thinking about it in those terms, trying to play a more proper TAG style definitely got easier even if i'm only playing 1-2 hands an orbit (if that). I think if you're over-emphasizing your two cards and only really thinking about the hands you're in, it would be pretty easy to get bored and start playing more hands - you think you're 'balancing your range', but at 1/1 and 1/2, there is almost no need for balancing. And it doesn't take long to have your range be completely out of whack. Next thing you know you're playing 65o and the flop is A48 two-suited and you have BD flush & straight draws. Now what? Even if you hit you may well be facing higher flushes or draws. The limper with an Ace isn't folding. Etc etc

Finally - I think people are focusing -waaaay- too much on the starting hand chart. I think the key to TAG is not the T part but the A part: the T part should give you an edge in starting hand and position, and the A part is to ensure you push your hand while you (should) have the edge, unless you have a specific reason not to (i.e., you're confident the maniac will do the work for you).

With a bunch of limpers, I'm done with the hand unless I hit the flop reasonably hard. A poor flop is -more- likely to have hit one of the limpers, and in any event I don't want to build or play in a big pot with TPGK against 5 randoms.

I should probably clarify my point above:

With a bunch of limpers, *if I see any major aggression from someone else* I'm done with the hand. If I get a bunch of callers, I proceed more cautiously, and will usually only aim for reasonable value bets. This is a -lot- easier since I know i'm almost never going to have my kicker dominated since I'm not limping in with A7o and then call to the river when an Ace hits the board.