I have recently learned that my playing style is loose and passive (although this was from data 2 years ago).

I think I have become more aggressive recently although after a bad beat, I usually revert back to passive play.

I have also learned playing too tight is bad as it makes you unprofitable in the long term.

How do you guys suggest I find a happy medium between loose/tight aggressive?

You don't aim to play a style, you aim to play optimally. Your "style" is then a description of that optimal play, which changes according to the conditions.

If you want a cookie-cutter approach, get hold of some hand charts, play those and don't deviate until you have internalised a sensible range and then begin to adjust to conditions.

if you are loose passive you dont know what tight is. play as tight as you can to start for awhile and you wont be spewing money as you have been lead to believe. you might even start winning. good luck.

oh, and a new boat for christmas please.

This is good advice.

There is no point trying to play a LAG style if you have 2 call stations to your left as you are just going to spew the monies vs villains who can't fold. Same as if you have 2 nits to your left there is no point in playing just premiums as they will fold so often. If you are on a table full of nits who can't fold top pair you want to be seeing lots of flops with hands which flop good and you will have more stationy stats on that table. If you are on a table with lots of limpers to your right who limp/fold a lot pre then you will be raising a lot preflop and have aggressive stats.

Your game is constantly adjusting to the conditions.

From what I have learnt there is not so much difference between a TAG and a LAG. A LAG will play a few more hands than a TAG, that's it.

The term "TAG" should be stricken from the lexicon.

There is a theoretical optimal style. I think you have to have a Phd to know what that is.

Consider three playing types:
1. LAG: plays a lot of hands, raises a lot, bluffs a lot.
2. Calling station: plays a fair number of hands, tends to call if they have a piece of the flop or a draw, seldom bluffs
3. Nit: plays a very limited range, never bluffs, only puts money in pot if they have a hand that is way above average

Think of poker as being an elaborate game of rock/paper/scissors.

Thus: calling station beats LAG, nit beats calling station, LAG beats nit.

People tend to have difficulty wrapping their head around this concept, and so there are a couple of pre-canned strategies you can use that are generally profitable at low-limit hold-em.

The style advocated around here is sort of Nit 2.0:
1. Play a restricted range of hands. (Buy a book. Follow advice.)
2. Play with a positional gradient (play a fair amount in late position, very rarely play in early position).
3. Raise pre-flop with strong hands.
4. Cbet. (Bet the flop, sometimes for value and sometimes as a bluff, with a frequency that is based on board texture, position, reads, and number of opponents. This is the only part that requires significant thought.)
5. Bet large amounts for value (2/3 pot on flop, 1/2 pot on turn and river).
6. Fold to aggression unless hand is unusually strong (2p+).

This is NOT an optimal line. If you think about it, your range is highly skewed toward strong hands. The only thing that keeps you from playing your hand face-up is your ability to cbet the flop with a draw or with air. You are easily exploitable by a skilled player.

The advantage of this line is that it works at the lower limits:
1. Basically nobody at that limit knows how to exploit this line.
2. It is tight enough to exploit loose, passive players, and makes a ton of money against these people.
3. It won't typically lose too much money to nits and will occasionally make a small profit off of flop cbets.

It does make the player vulnerable to LAG players, especially those who have a brain. But even blind aggression can make Nit 2.0 miserable. Fortunately, there aren't many of those at the lower limits.

DJAbacus is right, in a way. Nit 2.0 is flexible. You can vary your opening range and your frequency of bluffing. Play more cards -- in position of course -- cbet more, maybe even bet the turn occasionally, and voila! You're a little more aggressive, and can make more money off the nits. Tighten up your range, and only bet for value, and boom! You're stacking calling stations like crazy, and losing less money to the psycho LAGs.

If you're just getting started, yeah. Learn Nit 2.0, also known as "ABC" or "TAG." Work on your ability to assess villain's range and tendencies. You will know what to do, when the time comes.

You need more than a PHD to know what the 'optimal' style is, you need knowledge which hasn't yet been discovered.

This. Most people's definition of LAG is just agrotards.

Love this analysis. Gold sir.

Not sure why there is this sudden surge to say TAG isn't a thing. TAG is definitely a thing. It's very different from LAG.

Not disputing that at all. Just that peoples view of LAG is like this guy playing 50/40 or something and just in every pot, which simply isn't true- thats a lagtard. A good lag is playing closer to TAG but has a wider range.

Thanks Abqdave. That is very helpful. How much does the positional gradient apply to 6 max? or were you talking about 6 max? In that case i definately need to tighten up more in the earlier positions.

A good LAG is only playing LAG when the situation allows for it. They are a good enough player to recognise when the table dynamic allows them to open a wide range profitably. They are confident they can outplay most if not even all of the players on the table and they are confident that even OOP they still have a significant edge.

The same player may also have a good TAG game when the situation allows for it.

The difference is if somebody identifies themselves as a TAG they are basically saying they have not advanced enough to recognise spots where they can open their range wider.

At least that's how I see it.

I think it's more people saying that playing TAG or LAG purposefully is wrong than the terms not existing.

In that case I'm in complete agreement.

and I play a SLAG style


LOL

My playing style has flopped around a lot and I've been in the same spot as you before, so maybe the advice below will really resonate with you.

When I first started playing poker I learned an ABC style like most players. You read that tight is right in books and you learn the fundamentals of a TAG playing style. Somewhere along the lines I started to transition to a LAG style (much of this is due to the influence that Jason Somerville's videos have had on me) and found that I wasn't having the amount of success I had anticipated.

The more tight you play, the less post-flop skills you need to be a winner. The looser you play, the more post-flop skills you need to be a winner. One fundamental aspect of post-flop skills is aggression. This is why loose aggressive is such a great combination. You play a lot of hands and when you hit, you get paid off by being aggressive and when you don't hit, you get better hands to fold by being aggressive.

If you want to continue on the path of being a LAG, focus on gaining a very strong understanding of post-flop fundamentals. It's possible (and some would even say likely) that prior to attempting to play LAG, post-flop skills are under-used and usually undeveloped. Focus on this aspect of your game. In my opinion the most important post-flop concepts consist of: reverse implied odds, fold equity, hand equity, board textures, hand ranges, bluffing, semi-bluffing, and estimating your equity against range.

I would also like to add that you should never try and conform to a playing style. You should be able to rapidly adjust based on the table and stakes you are playing. Playing this sort of style of poker is almost never as successful as playing a TAG style at the smallest stakes (NL2 and NL5).

Well intentioned and ultimately solid advice but I still think it falls into the "label yourself as a player type then play that way" trap. It's the same reason football teams have different formations and why they discuss lineup and strategy before the game and during half time. They don't just decide that they are a 4-4-2 team and play the same every game. They adjust to the situation.


Edit:

aaaand then your ninja-edit makes my post largely useless

Haha! I hear what you are saying. While you shouldn't ever conform to a style (in a fashion like trying to match a certain PFR or open only a specific range), I would also argue that the original post is more about transitioning from a tight game to loosening up and trying to outplay his opponents more, but that is a distinction that needs to be made. That's what I provided advice for.

There is no style. Only EV

Then again, that doesn't mean to say that we don't try and have an image.

This also doesn't mean that there isn't a line between a player who has traditionally played his cards and would now like to transition to exploiting his opponents.

Thank you for the replies.

From what I've read here, post flop aggression is very important in being a LAG.

I think I might widen my range in cash gAmes.

I have become more profitable playing low stakes heads up cash after watching expert videos on heads up strategy

Heck if I know, I'm a live player.

In 9- or 10-player live games, you spend most of your time out of position, and the players to your left are usually loose passive calling stations who are unlikely to give you the button just because you raised pre. These factors conspire to make us look like total compete nits to you 6max guys. YMMV