In my humble view, a multi-image-player (my new term for LAG) will use math more than a TAG. This is because TAGs are a little more risk-averse, and generally only practise aggression when they have a significant mathematical edge. These "edge" spots for a TAG are generic---e.g. calculating FE with two-overs and nut-flush draw, knowing the implied odds of calling with a combo on the turn, knowing when to call preflop with s/c in a multiway pot in position---so that brain is relying as much on memory as the cognitive process of calculation.
On the other hand, the MIP (multi-image-player
), is looking for more creative spots, where the math needs to be calculated on the fly. These are, generally, floating scenarios, with back-draw equity in conjunction with FE, or leveraging spots against deep-stacks that require a four-street plan. For these types of play, math is not so much a rational discourse that
determines the action; it is, rather, a logical framework that can help map out the field of possibility.
TAGs, are, in the end, generic players, hence the parody inherent in this thread. They play according to tried-and-tested formula that necessitates a feeling of faith, especially at those times when variance works against them. If they actually did the math a little bit more, then, who knows, they might realise that sacrilegious acts, on the poker table, might, in the end, result in a greater win-rate. Sometimes, a little 2+2 guilt is not so bad after all.