I think Verstehen makes a couple of key points.
1.
Preflop play is totally overrated. This "solid"/"creative" debate is looking too much into the pre game. It's more about how they both play postflop. I really think it's about time we all moved beyond looking at preflop play having any real significance (after we see a flop).
Pre has just become the game within the game. And it's not about Poker. It's about "how wide he opens so how often I can 3-bet his range, light, in position?" to "he's 3-betting me light a lot here, so I can can 4-bet bluff him with card removal" on and on. It's a leveling war all about charts and percentages.
2.
Games are so much more reg infested now. Most of these regs play some version of "solid" or ABC. But that in itself can be significantly exploited. Because it is by definition fairly predictable.
They never flat 98s(A9s/A8s) v an UTG raise? So when they F with you on a A98 flop their tighter ranges help you out massively.
So I think, day by day, the game that exploits regs becomes more important than the game that exploits fish. And the creative player should be exploiting both. I'd argue he should be playing a "solid" game versus fish and a more creative one against regs.
I think as the argument is phrased ("solid" versus bordering "lagtard") it's largely weighted in the benefit of the former.
Would you rather be a player who is solid, and therefore fairly often predictable. Or the player who was solid, but who has moved beyond, and is now creatively looking for ways to exploit the former.
A solid player cannot exploit another solid player. But a player who moves beyond solid and becomes imaginative can.
I agree with CW that playing "solid" is the goal many should be aiming for. It's the base. The foundation.
But I don't see it as the ultimate goal. As waow said
Quote:
Originally Posted by waow
being edward is a good way to stay at 1/2 for the rest of your life