Tight Aggressive vs Loose Aggressive play in holdem tournaments
There are two styles of play in No-Limit Texas Hold’em, tight-aggressive and loose-aggressive. Which style is best and in what situations is it best? Many players think they know the answer and play excessively loose or excessively tight in all situations, which, as David Skylansky states in The Theory of Poker, is incorrect (27). Whether to be tight or loose and when to adopt either style will be determined by comparing and contrasting the two styles, listing their advantages and disadvantages, and applying the findings in a logical fashion. However, to even understand the differences between the two styles, a player must first understand the game.
In No-Limit Texas Hold’em, each player is dealt two down cards which the player does not show his opponents. The two blinds are placed on the table, required bets in order to force the action, and are posted directly to the left of the dealer. A round of betting occurs, starting with the person to the left of the big blind (the person to the left of the button goes first in each of the following rounds). Three community cards, known as the flop, are dealt face up. Another round of betting occurs, and a fourth card, the turn, is dealt face up. A third round of betting takes place and the final card, the river, is turned face up. The last round of betting takes place and the person with the best 5-card poker hand wins the pot.
Such a complex game is boiled down to two relatively simple styles; tight-aggressive and loose aggressive. (Both styles include the word ‘aggressive’ because when a player enters a hand from either style, he is supposed to be aggressive; to play weak or passive is generally known to be incorrect strategy.) Each of the two styles has its own unique approach to the game.
Tight-aggressive play is discussed first because it is simple, solid poker playing. A tight-aggressive player’s gameplan will be to play few pots and try to pick off small pots. Also, they must keep even with the blinds and antes so they don’t get blinded away. A player should avoid all-in confrontations unless his hand is very likely to come out on top; if a player loses an all-in confrontation, he is out of the tournament! By playing small-pots, he assures that he at least will not lose all of his chips during one hand (Harrington 1: 51).
What are the advantages a tight-aggressive style has over a loose-aggressive style? When a player adopts the tight-aggressive style he plays higher quality hands than the average player, simply because he doesn’t play as many; consequently, his post-flop decisions will be made much easier. For instance, if he hits the flop at all, he is very likely to have the best hand; if he misses it, he can easily throw his hand away (Harrington 1: 37, 51).
The disadvantages of a tight-aggressive style are few. One big disadvantage is that it may leave a player feeling cramped, “perhaps you’re just a little too flamboyant for conservatism.” (Harrington 1: 39) Many players love the action, and a tight player just doesn’t receive very much. In addition, sometimes a player plays too tight in the wrong situations, which raises a question: when should and shouldn’t a player play tight-aggressive?
One situation when a player plays too tight is when the blinds are so high compared to a player’s chip stack, pot odds justify just shoving his chips in with any two cards (Harrington 2: 258). Similarly, at a smaller table, say four or five people, the blinds go around much faster and a player must play looser or risk losing his stack to the blinds (Harrington 2: 27). Remember, the gameplan of a tight-aggressive player is to keep just ahead of the blinds and antes, but to do so, sometimes he must loosen his starting hand requirements (Harrington 1: 51).
However, there are certainly plenty of times to play conservative. At the beginning of the tournament, when blinds and antes are still relatively low, it doesn’t pay off to play every hand. There is no pressure to play and a player can simply wait for a good hand. Another great time to play tight is during cash-games, the kind of game where a player puts his money down on the table and sometimes even plays with real cash instead of tournament chips. Dan Harrington says that in these ring games, old-fashioned conservative play predominates; there’s no reason to steal the blinds and antes when a player buys in for 300 times the big blind. (Harrington 1: 37). Also, unlike tournaments, the blinds never increase! Obviously, a cash-game is similar to the situation at the beginning of tournaments; there is no pressure to play many hands, and a player can simply wait for a good one (Harringon 2: 76).
In Harrington on Hold’em, Volume 1:, Dan Harrington states that most books recommend beginners to go tight-aggressive; the style keeps them out of trouble. “Every pot you enter has the potential of consuming all of your chips.” For example, in the 2003 World Series of Poker, a player had the chip lead on Day Four after many hours of play but lost all of his chips in the course of just two hands and five minutes (37). However, he also says that conservatism can leave a player feeling bored or cramped. “In that case, you may want to look at the merits of the aggressive style” (Harrington 1: 39).
The loose-aggressive style is different from the tight-aggressive style in that one plays many more hands from many different positions than he normally would. A tight player would frown upon raising with an 87 suited from first position, but a loose-aggressive player considers this normal. The loose-aggressive style requires a big-stack; it is needed to push the smaller stacks around. Therefore, the loose-aggressive player’s first job is to double up as soon as possible, then use his huge chipstack to discourage opponents from playing their hands against him (Harrington 1: 40).
The loose-aggressive style has many advantages over the more conservative style. First, an aggressive player plays many more pots and therefore receives plenty of action; the more action, the more fun and excitement. Second, the loose player steals many more pots. The player’s stealing of pots is very financially rewarding because a player picks up pots he shouldn’t be picking up. Also, pulling off a bluff with a horrible hand is psychologically rewarding and gives a player more confidence. Finally, Dan Harrington says “An aggressive player is more likely to win big on his monster hands.” People will think, ‘It’s just a loose-aggressive player. He probably doesn’t have anything’ and gleefully move over the top of him with medium-strong holdings ( 2: 40).
However, one huge advantage encompasses all of the previous advantages; “An aggressive player is much harder to read,” explains Dan Harrington (2: 41). The reason is that the player adopting the style plays many hands and raises with almost all of them, which makes it difficult to determine where the player stands. An opponent has a much harder time deciding whether a flop helped a loose player than he does a tight player. A flop of 643 may be harmless when facing a tight player who plays nothing but high cards. “Against a super-aggressive player, you could be facing a straight, two pair, or a set” (Harrington 1: 42).
Of course, there are severe repercussions when playing loose-aggressive that some people cannot cope with. “The aggressive style is not inferior to the conservative style in theory, but it requires much more skill to play well” (Harrington 1: 41). In other words, a player is always dancing on the edge, making tough decisions while holding weak cards. All this delicate maneuvering is tiring, and tired people make more mistakes. In addition, by betting and playing more hands, an aggressive player will more often run into well-concealed monster hands. Experienced pros will often use the ‘rope-a-dope’ method, checking to a loose-aggressive player with a monster and letting him lead in the betting. Finally, with all of the action, a loose player will face much bigger swings in stack sizes, which can be emotionally devastating. Going from chip leader to shortstack and back in the course of a few hands is very draining and can be hard to deal with (Harrington 1: 41).
Once a player understands the two styles and their advantages, disadvantages, and basic strategies, he must then understand some of the unusual situations that occur during tournament play.
The first odd situation that occurs in tournament play is known as the bubble. The bubble is the time in a tournament just before the money. If there are 400 people in a tournament and 40 are paid, the bubble occurs when the number of players left is around 41-43. Naturally players grow tighter and tighter because people, especially satellite qualifiers (players who entered a major tournament by winning a lower-costing tournament), want to be paid. This is the perfect time to play loose-aggressive! However, a player shouldn’t call other players, but instead raise them out of the pot. Poker expert John Juanda says “You can just wait until nobody raises, then you raise, you become the first one in, and a good percentage of the time, everybody’s just going to fold because they don’t want to mess with you” (30).
Even a tight-aggressive player can benefit from being on the bubble. All he has to do is switch up his style and the right moments and pull off a few bluffs. If people view a player as being tight, they won’t recognize his play for what it is; a simple steal on the bubble. They will believe he has a real hand! A tight-aggressive player has just modulated his style to fit the circumstances and adopted the loose style. Dan Harrington says ”Once you begin modulating your style, you’ll discover of the amusing paradoxes of poker: You’ll make the easiest money when you’re playing in a style opposite to your natural one” (1: 52). A tight player will find it easier to pull off bluffs, a mostly loose-aggressive tactic, and a loose player will find that their big hands are being called down, something a tight player strives for.
When should a player switch? The first time to switch is when a player has been pegged by his opponents; if he continues playing the same style, he might as well be playing with his cards face up (Harrington 1: 52). Harrington says that ironically once a player has pegged his opponent on a certain style, he’s gone! The other players have pegged him too, and he has not switched up.
The other reason to switch styles is in order to adapt with the blinds and antes. Usually, it is the tight-aggressive players who need to loosen up as the blinds go up. Soon, they will find out that one round of poker around the table takes up a fifth or more of their stack, and they cannot wait to find better hands. The amount of rounds a player can survive before the antes/blinds gobble him up is known as M; the lower his M, the looser he needs to be. As said before, a tight player will find it easier to pull off bluffs in this spot just because of his image (but unless he switches up, he will be unlikely to actually bluff because he is playing tight) while a loose-aggressive player may have trouble stealing the blinds and antes, especially if his opponents know he is playing loose-aggressive. However, the loose player will be called more often when he has a big hand, resulting in double ups instead of just the stealing of the blinds and antes (Harrington 2: 142).
From all the evidence listed thus far, playing tight-aggressive throughout the whole tournament is the wrong way to play. While a player may start off as tight-aggressive, soon the blinds and antes will catch up to him, and he will have to switch up and turn loose-aggressive. By playing loose-aggressive through the whole tournament, a player can steal and dance his way to the final table. However, Harrington said that a tight player can bluff with a higher success rate than a loose player, and a loose player will get his monster hands called more often then a tight player (Harrington 1: 41). Logically, since a loose player’s goal is to bluff more often, and a tight style does just that, a loose player should strive to attain a tight image! A tight image can be acquired by showing down only good cards and mucking all of the other trash hands. In the same sense, a tight player’s goal is to get his monster hands called, and since a loose style does just that, he should try to attain a loose image! A loose image can be achieved by showing down his bluffs the few times he actually bluffs.
In conclusion, both styles are well-rounded with one style’s weaknesses drawing off another’s strengths. From the evidence, a player most likely cannot win a tournament without playing both styles or at least pretending like he’s playing both styles. Since switching styles is a key element in poker, and there are only two solid styles, both are important. As David Sklansky says in The Theory of Poker, “Some players always play loose. Others always play tight. Good players adjust their play to the game” (149).
While the loose-aggressive style offers thrills and outrageous bluffs, some people might not be that crazy and prefer the solid, tight-aggressive style, where the player has the confidence of knowing his hand is almost always better than his opponent’s when he enters the pot. While some situations demand a certain style, such as short tables with low M’s (demands loose-aggressive) (Harrington 2: 276) or old-fashioned cash games (demands tight-aggressive) (Harrington 1: 37), it is almost always up to the individual to draw upon his own strengths.
