One more thing to consider re: TAG vs LAG.....stack depth makes a huge difference in the style you can play. When stacks are deep a LAG style can be more profitable b/c your implied odds are bigger and when the pot gets big you still have enough behind you to make a big enough to bluff to fold out your opponent. Contrast that to a typical 100bb capped game where your implied odds drop and you don't have the stack depth make those profitable bluffing opportunites so your style naturally tightens up as you fold some of those speculative hands

Good point.

I’m going to come back later and post a link in this thread when I have time, but the short version is, I think the posters who say “LAG is more winning than TAG” do not understand what a TAG actually is, and they confuse TAG with nit.

An old “slogan” I saw on here once, and I still believe it: “Rock beats fish, LAG beats rock, TAG beats LAG.”

In the game I frequent nowadays, the best and most consistent players are TAGs. But they’re true TAGs, not just “tight.”

Good TAGs should have the same aggressiveness post flop as LAGs but have a tighter (better) range pre. flop ... which also makes it easier to not be overbluffing/overfolding/etc.

As madlex said early in the thread, playing more hands makes it easier to learn more. I've also heard high level players say it's easier to coach a maniac to tighten up in more spots than it is to coach a nit to open up in more spots.
So agreeing with those points, and live experience saying you just won't be punished as much, I think it's somewhat "easier" at low stakes to play too many hands pre. and be too aggressive post than it is to play closer to correct pre. and x/c correctly.

Also not all 1-2 is the same. I've sat at 1-2 games where opening to $6 pre. with stupid ranges was amassing towers of white chips, to the point everyone was commenting on how boring the game is for everyone else (while they folded AKo in the blinds). On the other hand I've played in 1-2 games where open raising limpers to $35 with AA did not get folds from 86o in EP.


I would also be very careful about thinking LAGs are more profitable because they have more chips in front of them ... it's very easy to have $900 in front of you at 1-2 but have less profit than the player with $400 in front of them.


Also find it hard to believe GG identifies as either. I would say it's more weak tight pre. and rarely "aggressive" post ... much closer to OMC as a "type" ... but there's an ok chance that is the best thing to do in his games, and maybe yours too.
To echo another post, the number of times I've seen people put a lot of money in against some who is never bluffing and always has better is mentally painful at times.

FWIW, I personally don’t have over-simplistic labels, but it’s clear that this forum does.

TAG as used in this forum to me is synonymous with “basic math” + range + minimal read, as demonstrated by a mass majority of all the strat posts.

LAG, which no one really has a clear understanding nor definition for, is basically anyone looser than a TAG as defined above.

Given that’s how I see it, clearly I believe LAG is above TAG.

Otherwise, it’s pretty apparent to me that anyone who can play hands profitably should play as many hands as possible, and again, most here would just label that person as LAG.

+1

My guess is that a lot of my losing laggy opponents completely misunderstand / misapply information that isn't at all suitable to the type of game we are often playing in. It's personally why I now prefer playing on a 66bb stack where their mistakes are very obvious to me, whereas at 300bb deep it wouldn't be nearly as obvious to me who is making more mistakes.

GcluelessdeepstacknoobG

in my room unless you cash out and come back the next day you cannot rabbit hole from your stack when you change tables.

Yes, I would agree weak tight is a more accurate description than TAG/LAG for me, and I admittedly stated that those terms only "very loosely" applied to me. And even though I have a very limpy in non-LP strategy, I'm limping a huge percentage of those hands with the thoughts of 3betting (so I probably have a relatively high 3bet percentage compared to the more typical OMC type opponents).

But, yeah, fully agree with the other comment regarding ~non-bluffers (and I can include myself in that) just continually getting paid off by morans in our game. The last few sessions I can barely keep from rolling my eyes at some of the river bets/raises that have been paid off by terrible opponents against even terribler face-up ABC non-bluffy players. There are many times I'll see hands at showdown and make a mental note "never, like NEVER, I mean N E V E R E V E R, bluff this guy". Obviously opponent dependent, but I'm mostly trying to get myself on these types of tables that hopefully only have one or two players with half a brain where I might be forced to deviate.

Gstep1laypokerwithpeoplewhoarereallybadatpoker;s tep2:nootherstepsmatterG

Our room also has a similar rule (although I think the actual rule here is that you must quit the game for at least an hour).

However, you can effectively rathole by changing from a relative deepstack table to a relative shortstack table. It's definitely part of my table change consideration factors.

GcluelesstablechangingnoobG

That sounds like TAGfish, like all the people complaining online poker was unbeatable in 2009 because they were breaking even trying to just put money in with the best hands and maybe semibluff with combo draws.

empirically everyone ive heard describe themselves as LAG usually just have bad fundamentals and no patience / discipline with some ego issues as well

That's also my experience as a low level player and coach.

And it's not even a poker thing. It's way easier to get somebody with a high level of risk tolerance to invest into something associated with a low level of risk than to get a risk averse person to invest into something with a high level of risk. Most poker nits are actually life nits.

Risk aversion doesn't stop you from being a good poker player. But it prevents good players from maximizing their potential.

So the thread I wanted to link is in the Best Of, so I don’t have to. It’s the “so you think you have a TAG image” thread. The age of that thread should tell you that the problem of this forum not really knowing what TAG means has been around pretty much forever.

Someone else said this already, but the difference between a good player playing a TAG style and a good player playing a LAG style is much less than I suspect most people posting here think. Both have about the same level of aggression once they decide to enter a pot. The difference is the LAG will just be in more pots because they’re willing to come in with weaker starting hands. But if they are both good players then they will both tend to have strong hands when the big money goes in.

By the way, people who are unaware of how similar these two styles are when played well can lose a lot of money mistaking a TAG for a LAG.

the biggest winning strats from good LAGs that ive noticed

1) good LAGs buy in as deep as possible. some TAGs (or maybe TAGnits like me?) buy in 150 BB or less.
2) good LAGs play more cautious multiway. they also bet huge (sometimes overbetting pot) with big hands multiway.
3) good LAGS print vs TAGs when deep position by bombing scary boards and playing more cautious on boards favoring the TAGs range. i was recently forced to c/f twice on middling boards when I 3 bet pre with AK/AQ OOP and got called by a good LAG in position. because i knew if i cbet i would get floated on anyway.
4) good LAGs show bluffs.

i dont do any of these things (except being cautious multiway, which is an adjustment i recently made). maybe not doing these things is a huge leak.

Fixed your post

This doesn't make you good or bad but it would be better for TAGs to do since they would more often have it.

Based on your posts it sounds like you have a lot of insecurity about your game. It sounds like you play tight b/c you don't have the confidence (knowledge?) to play marginal spots in an aggressive manor or play big pots with a deep stack. You seem like you're very afraid of getting taken advantage of by loose players who you think are bluffing you constantly or stacking you when they make big hands with a marginal starting spot. The reality is that in the stakes you play, most of the "LAG winners" you see are likely just long term losing players with a short term upswing. They are most likely too loose to be profitable but you find yourself in these situations where you are running bad when you raise and the flop misses you and you're frustrated. Best advice I can give you is to continue to work on your game. Find your weaknesses and fix them. Once you start to improve, your confidence and hands you can play profitably will increase

Actually you are worse. First you want to only compare GOOD LAGS to ALL TAGS. Let’s compare EV of GOOD TAGS to ALL LAGS.

Even worse you then redefine te4ms to mean what you already concluded. You are literally now including good and even decent TAGS as LAGS. Sur3 if you choose to characterize ALL good players as LAGS then yes YOUR LAGS will be the best. They just won’t really be just LAGS.

Real reality, the key is good aggression and adjusting to the table. Some times you will be loose and sometimes tight.

I suspect OP that you equate "good LAG" with "has large stack." One thing you notice over time that those "tight" players seem to always be in the poker room. You won't see those "LAGs" nearly as often. The reason is that many of them come in, lose 4 buyins quickly and are done for the night. You don't see them lose, just when they have a big stack and are hanging around. You probably wouldn't even notice if a player at 1/3 was up $60 after 4 hours, even thought that would be a good result for a tight player.

A good player has to know how to play both.

I m34n…fix y0ur k3yboard first maybe?

And were I typing on a physical keyboard you would quickly find out I have a couple of fingers that only work in tandem, not alone. Played hell with my golf game before my left arm weakness forced my to quit. My typing could never keep up with my thoughts even when I had 8 working fingers.

Still doesn’t excuse your complete lack of ability to support your wacky claims. Try refuting the parts you understand. After that I will spoon feed you the other 95%.

BTW if you are going to try and mock someone, do the basics. Being overly loose with facts is just as bad in a debate, as being too loose out of position. The @ is over the and 9 is over the o but at least you got the 3 correct.

I am not trying to mock you - but let's not forget that you're the one that quoted me to start.

Like I don't know what you mean by false choice. I stated very clearly. If a player can play hands profitably, it would make sense to play as many hands as possible.

But if a player can only play good hands profitably, then it would make sense to play as few hands they can play profitably.

In that context, it is pretty easy to see why "loose" is better than "tight" given a similar level of aggression for those that can win consistently.

Right, if there are players that can counter an exploit, then that exploit becomes less effective or altogether stop being an exploit.

This makes no sense, because it's much easier to fold to a tight player than a loose player, given similar level of aggression. This should be pretty self explanatory.

Again, I have no real opinion of what label beats what. And I agree with the whole notion that most LLSNL players probably can't tell a TAG or LAG apart.

I am simply stating an observation from reading all these strat threads that TAG seems to be someone who's tighter than most at the table, observe next to nothing that's relevant at the table, and try to solve a hand by doing some simple EV calculation with some super wide ranges.

I'm a bit late to the party, but the entire concept of TAGs and LAGs are very outdated (pre 2010) and no serious player should think in these terms nowadays. A really good player doesn't have a style he sticks to, he has a baseline strategy (people arrogantly/ignorantly call this GTO style), observes how people around him play, realises what their leaks are and adjusts his strategy accordingly.

FWIW no pro I play with plays anything like what a LAG's supposed to be. Some are looser ofc, some are borderline nits, but none play 40/35/20 full ring, constantly running huge bluffs post. Not saying there aren't some lagtard poker gods somewhere, but I've yet to meet one. The closest guys to a LAG I frequently play with are the younger ones with some online experience, but they just don't like folding stuff they should because they overestimate their postflop edge, they aren't going crazy 3betting 75s vs EP opens. There are some other breakevenish middle aged guys, who very seriously overestimate their hand/soulreading abilities, so they try to occasionally own people with completely random hands like 43o, because of some feeling I guess.

To OP, if you really wanted to improve go play some online poker in stakes you don't mind dropping tens of buyins. You get to play more spots in 1 hour of 4 tabling reg tables online than a week of full ring live. The competition is also way tougher, which is bad for making money, but good for education. I've seen too many guys with 10.000+ hours of live poker experience still playing like a bad reg in the Moneymaker days. Ofc they usually don't want to improve as they 'already know how to play', but it still speaks volumes of the educational value of playing low stakes live.

You shouldn't be a TAG or a LAG, you should be both. The ability to switch it up like a chameleon is indispensable in LLSNL. Your table and the Vs sitting down should dictate what strategy you utilize. There are arguably even times to be TP. Just don't ever be LP.