What makes a WINNING poker player ??

In my early poker education, which I am still in, everything I have read says play tight.

Which seems rather simple, but there is so much more to being a winning player.

I mainly play 4/8 cash, where 5/6 people see the flop each time and stay in.

How is No limit tournament poker play different than the above game, besides the obvious.

You have to be aggressive in No Limit tournaments. In Las Vegas, most low buy-in tournaments only last a few hours. There isn't enough time to wait for elite hands. Play aggressive, let others fold to you and hope the cards hold up.

I am also relatively early in my poker "career," if it can be called that so far. IMO, playing tight isn't all that important, as long as you can play well post flop, which takes lots of practice.

In the game you described, I may tighten up a lot, since there are so many people seeing the flop. In my games, which are generally .25/.50 cent games played at people's houses (no rake, dealt by the players, etc.) the players are generally pretty strong, and I find the only way I can beat them is to play super LAG - but smart about it. (I get insane implied odds b/c of my image, which is super loose, and only a couple of players have started to see me as a threat.) Part of my reasoning is, I started play with them by playing pretty tight, but I found that I rarely got any action as a result, or when I did from good players, they had a good read on me nearly every hand with big action.

By loosening up significantly, I've found that I can get players to give me action more, and doubt that I have made a hand. One example was a horrible play for a tight player, but because I had drilled an image of someone who would raise nearly any 2 cards, I intended on capitalizing on this. I was dealt 9-6 of hearts. I was in early position, and this is usually an easy fold. I had decided I would raise around 6BB with any hand that connected with itself, and so I bet 3 dollars in early position. Because of my image, there was 5 or 6 callers. The flop came X-9-9. I checked it, and some action occurred, and I called. The pot is around 35 dollars, and I have about 25 behind, and there are 4 people left in the pot. A 6 came, and I checked my full house. Next player checks, there is a 6 dollar raise, a call and I move all in. Everyone folds except the guy who called the 6 dollar raise, and shows trip 9s. River misses him, and I win a pretty big pot. I remember someone at the table, who I consider a smart player verifying with the host "did he raise 3 dollars UTG with 9-6 suited?" Well, I've actually gotten far more big pots off of that player than he has on me (though he did stick me quite a few times haha.) and that's pretty much completely due to my loose image. I've gotten him to read my hand, and still call a huge "bluff" because nobody would play it like that. There was a 10-J on the board, He literally said, "who plays 10-J like that?" and then called. In the end, though, my loose play has only been profitable because I've been able to make a few huge lay downs, and so post flop play is SUPER important for the LAG player.


(I have noticed a couple players started to have a better read on me post flop, so now it's time to start confusing those stronger players. I'm already beating all the weaker players out of a significant amount.)



Now, this was way earlier in my play, when I was just starting to realize how much affect my table image had. I now know way more about things like position play, implied odds, reading/hand ranges (honestly still working hard and making slow progress on that,) etc.



My advice is to play relatively tight while learning good post flop play, but be generally aggressive even if you play tight. Just be a little careful, because really tight play is REALLY easy to beat. As you get better at calculating odds, estimating implied odds, putting your opponents on ranges, etc. start opening up your range and playing looser. Just remember that the two extremes are easily beatable, and somewhere in between super tight and super loose, there's "optimal play" based on proper post flop strategy and your opponents ranges in different scenarios. While this optimal strategy isn't going to be executed by a human, the best possible strategies against good players are almost always somewhat loose, very aggressive and reliant on understanding hand ranges.

As for tournaments, strategy changes significantly. Because you have to place to cash, every spot that pays 0 dollars is the same result.

Understanding this concept is simple enough. If you play in a winner take all sit'n'go, then your only goal is to get 1st place. Every other place pays 0, and so you may make plays that the odds don't agree with if you were betting money instead of chips. EG - If each player has 10-30 BB, and you are in the BB with only 10 BB left. UTG raises to 3 BB (20 Behind), CO raises 8(20 behind), button raises all in with 16. You're holding AKo. The other players on the table, who folded, have about 30 BB each. What do you do?

In a cash game, I'd fold (regardless of how much $$ I had behind, unless it was really tiny compared to the BB). Nearly instantly. The probability of someone holding 2 aces or kings is too high, and it's probably not profitable to call. But in a winner take all tournament, I'd consider the call, and I'd probably make it. If someone is holding two aces or kings, I have to hope I suck out. Otherwise, I'm still in pretty good shape, and winning this big pot is probably my best way to get a good shot at 1st place, because otherwise I'd get blinded out quickly.

Quote: DonPedro

In my early poker education, which I am still in, everything I have read says play tight.

Which seems rather simple, but there is so much more to being a winning player.

I mainly play 4/8 cash, where 5/6 people see the flop each time and stay in.

How is No limit tournament poker play different than the above game, besides the obvious.

There is no simple answer to this question.
Generally though TAG is easier to learn and be profitable with and will have less variance then a LAG. What you don't wan't to be is weak tight or a passive calling station, these are quick paths to going broke.
Playing LAG incorrectly has much more sever consequences.
Opening up your range by position is standard, but there is not much value in playing hands like 96 in early position. I understand "mixing it up" and "balancing ranges" but opening with 96s is not a recommended way to do it. If you get pegged as tight, people always fold to your raises then start by opening your range in later positions not earlier.
There is tons of arguments for TAG vs LAG and which is better, it will also have to do with what is more comfortable for you.

Here is a good link:
http://www.parttimepoker.com/tight-aggressive-vs-loose-aggressive-play-in-holdem-tournaments

Google TAG vs LAG and you will see the many different opinions.

Quote: Boney526

In a cash game, I'd fold (regardless of how much $$ I had behind, unless it was really tiny compared to the BB). Nearly instantly. The probability of someone holding 2 aces or kings is too high, and it's probably not profitable to call. But in a winner take all tournament, I'd consider the call, and I'd probably make it.

I would need more info before making a decision, but "The probability of someone holding 2 aces or kings is too high" . Based on what? The "probability" is actually lower since you have AK. I'm being nitty here, but the likelihood maybe higher due to the action etc... but the probability is lower due to the cards you hold.

It's lower due to the cards I hold sure, but how often are you getting good odds when there is a 4 bet? You have to consider what hands they'd be holding to do this move.

In a cash game, where they do not have to place, or keep up with the blinds to stay in the game, the players would likely only make moves like this with strong starting hands. Perhaps the first raise, and maybe the second raiser could do so without really great hands. But by the time there's a 4 bet, you may consider folding. There's a good chance that one of these 3 players (probably the 4 better) has AA or KK, maybe they just have AK, and maybe they've got something like 10-10, JJ or QQ. Either way, chances are, this is at BEST a breakeven bet and I'd rather cut my 1 BB loss than risk my whole stack. (Unless the players are really, really bad with no understanding of hand value, in which case, maybe I'd call.)

But in a tournament, where people must keep up with escalating blinds, and their motivation is to place, rather than get into as many +EV hands as possible, the play changes along with it. You may just be forced to call in certain situations, because it'd increase your overall chance to place in the highest payest positions.

A more simple example would be that there are 5 people left in a 9 person sit n go, average stack size 1500 and the blinds are 25/50. You only have 300 chips left, and are UTG, with a pair of 10s. You should probably go all in, because you're going to see a round of blinds next, and unless you can build you chip stack, you are very unlikely to be able to place. Doubling up (plus the blinds) would put in a position to stay in longer, hopefully doubling up twice and getting you in real contention to place. In a cash game, I wouldn't shove with 10-10 UTG, because I'd likely only get called if I was beat or possibly in a coin flip. (In a tournament) it's true that you'll get called if you're an underdog almost every time but players who are also desperate or short stacked may be forced to call with any pair, while players who have lots of chips may call with a larger range in order to try to eat my chips. And my objective is different in a sit-n-go and cash game. Since this is pretty much my last chance at placing, I'd have to take it. (And it may actually have positive chip EV, depending on your opponents.) A round of blinds would bring me down to 225 chips, and another round isn't far behind. The blinds will also be raised soon. I simply can't wait for another shot. If I survive this one, then I'll think about the next opportunity.



I hope my examples are good enough. I'm really bad at teaching, so my examples may be overly complex. The main point is that you have to understand the motivations of the other players to understand why they may act how they do at the table. (And this is different in a cash game than a sitngo, and is also different in a MTT, etc. The structure changes the way people play.) Over time this helps you range in on what hands they're probably holding. Sure, holding an AKo lowers everyone elses chance of having a pair of Aces or Kings, but if their actions scream QQ,KK or AA, you may be able to deduce that someone probably has you beat in many circumstances. And with 9 people at a table, there's still a pretty decent chance that someone could hold one of those hands. Not high, but you will eventually have AK against AA or KK, in fact, I've seen if quite a few times. (Although folding AKo isn't quite as easy as I'm making it sound haha. I've even had a situation where me and 2 other players were all dealt AKo and forced all in by the pot odds created by other players action - who had folded to our all ins. At least nobody hit a flush - so we just laughed about it!)

I agree cash games are different then tournaments, for many of the reasons you specify. Maybe I am taking your example too literally. But basically I took your example of having 10BB with AK and folding in a cash game, which I would never do. Your remark about the cash game said you would almost instantly fold regardless of stack size. Folding here deeper has merits in a cash game, folding here in a cash game with 10BB is bad.

See the problem with the idea that opening up with 96 is a bad play, is that it's a bad play for most players. If you get good enough at reading, then it can be a good play. It was also a good play, IMO, due to the long term potential of using my loose play to an advantage.

I had essentially 2 bet every oppurtunity pre-flop, only throwing away garbage to a raise, and played super aggressive low ball that whole night. Nobody, through the night could conceivably put my on a range (possibly by the river.) I was literally using a random occurence to determine my raise if I opened between 1.50 and 3 dollars, so it had no link to the cards I was holding. Of course, I only played like this because I felt I had pretty good reads on more than half the field that night.

In most scenarios where I don't know the players that well, I still play LAG, but nowhere near that level. That hand would be a fold, maybe limp depending on the players. And even now, when I play against those players, I play TAG once in a while, and mix up how loose I am. It's all conditional. If they think I'm playing loose, I tighten up, unless there are really good implied odds. If they think I'm playing tight, I try to steal some pots. Everyone who I play with regularly knows me to be loose, but they should never be too certain of how you're playing right at that moment, on that hand. Many plays you could call bad serve a longer term purpose.

Keep in mind that the game is ultimately about information, and using it effectively. (Hypothetical Example - If you had 10c-Jc suited, and were 100% sure your opponent held AKo - none touching your suit - would you call a bet that was essentially 1-1 pot odds, if you knew you'd be heads up? I would, because the extra information is certainly worth a lot. If the board comes 9c-Qc-Kh and the turn brings a Ks, you could pick up a HUGE pot. I understand this is not realistic, to know your opponents cards 100%, but the point was that the extra information gave you ridiculous extra cards. Had he outdrawn you, you would have folded.)

Giving out disinformation may not be quite as powerful, but can still bring in $$$ long term if your opponents think they are picking up on something, when in reality, you expect to exploit it.

I guess to answer the question posed in the title, though, it's thought process. Pure and simple. Many great players disagree about what they'd do in certain situations, but it's hard to put a real qualifying factor except the ability to use logic to arrive at good decisions, and preferably the best decisions possible.

Quote: rubixxcube

I agree cash games are different then tournaments, for many of the reasons you specify. Maybe I am taking your example too literally. But basically I took your example of having 10BB with AK and folding in a cash game, which I would never do. Your remark about the cash game said you would almost instantly fold regardless of stack size. Folding here deeper has merits in a cash game, folding here in a cash game with 10BB is bad.

Oops - I didn't specify. I meant that you'd have 10BB in a tournament. I'd never be seated at a cash game with 10BB, I'd rather just re-buy than play that short stacked, so I can't see myself being in a situation where I wasn't stacked deeply enough to want to just fold the AK to a 4 bet.

Quote: DonPedro

In my early poker education, which I am still in, everything I have read says play tight.

Which seems rather simple, but there is so much more to being a winning player.

I mainly play 4/8 cash, where 5/6 people see the flop each time and stay in.

How is No limit tournament poker play different than the above game, besides the obvious.

I would recommend not playing in Limit cash games if you want to develop your skill in No Limit. The approaches to the games are very different, and many drawing hands in no-limit, that would be folded facing a strong raise, will get called in limit games just because of the pot odds. Is there a 1/2 or 1/3 no limit cash game you could work out at instead of a 4/8 limit (which often becomes an 8/16 "kill" game)?

Great points and insights Boney526...one thing I didn't see mentioned, and it applies to cash games and tournaments equally is your expected return on your investment vis a vi pot size. So in the example you sighted where in a cash game 4 people raised ahead of you and you would fold AK...might be a mistake because the pot is going to be 5X whatever the call is. So if you have a 20% chance or greater of winning the hand..and with AK you probably do. From a purely mathamatical point of view you should call. This of course doesn't factor in your knowledge(or lack thereof) of the players at the table and their style of play, tells etc.

A 4bet is actually three raisers, but your point is about pot odds, so let me address that. If nobody else has an ace, but someone has a pair of kings, out of 4 players, you still aren't getting proper drawing odds (assuming the other players hands are better than average and are all going to put the full bet in.) It's close, so your blind would make it slightly chip EV - but I still wouldn't call.

If any one of them has aces your odds to win are around 5-8%. (Also assuming that nobody holds your king.)

The correct play is to fold, as long as you think there's a reasonable chance that somebody has AA or KK.

Plus the pot size would not be 4x the bet, since the first 2 raisers haven't yet called the 4 bet. They are also only likely to if they have big hand, like QQ, KK, AA. All in all, you've got to fold, because chances are, based on the action, that in the best case scenarios you barely have the right odds, and in most other scenarios, you're dominated.

Plus, what if there is someone else with AK? Then a QQ is pretty big a favorite over you! There are just too many ways you can turn a barely breakeven call into a losing proposition. This is a fold deepstacked no limit, and a call if desperate in a tournament, or if the other players are desperate.



All of this logic goes out the window, though, if you know the players could make these raises with much worse hands. Then call, call away... Just know it could put you as a long shot to win if anyone has AA, and a slightly less long shot if someone holds KK.

Quote: Boney526

In the game you described, I may tighten up a lot, since there are so many people seeing the flop.

In a very loose game, it's not so much that I'm going to tighten up (I'll actually play a fair number of hands) but I'll change the hands that I play. Easily dominated offsuit high-card hands are crap. In a tight game I might try to steal the blinds, or get heads up against a weak player with a hand like KJ offsuit, but in a game where 7 people see the flop this is a pretty bad hand.

On the other hand, I'm going to loosen up a lot with suited hands. If I believe that I can see the flop for 1 bet (either because the game is passive pre-flop, or because I am in late position, I will play some real suited trash, especially if the game is aggressive enough post-flop that I think i can build a big pot if I want to. If I can't get in for 1 bet I'm tightening up somewhat, but still playing a lot of suited / moderately connected hands. If I flop a decent draw, I am also betting it VERY HARD on the flop and even on the turn if the situation is right. Basically, I will bet a flush draw almost the same as a flopped set in a multi-way pot.

You were exactly right when you said that it's important to be able to play well post-flop. There are going to be a lot of big pots, and you have to be able to play well in them. I'd recommend the book "small stakes hold'em" By Ed Miller. It doesn't really matter whether the stakes are actually small (obviously); this book is all about how to extract maximum value from a loose aggressive game. IMO a lot of mid-limit games fall into this category (my local 15-30 limit game often does)

Another important concept that (I think) most players don't get is "position relative to the raiser". When most people think of "position", I think that they understand that it is better to be in late position than early, all else being equal. The problem is, all else is often not equal, and a lot of players don't get that. For example, say you are on the button, and there are a couple of calls, and then the cutoff (the player before the button) raises. A lot of players think that because they are on the button they are in the best position, and can call somewhat looser than they normally would. This could not be further from the truth. Your absolute position is the best, but your position relative to the raiser is the worst. If you call, you are going to be in a 4-6 player pot (depending on what the blinds do) with the raiser right before you. 8 times out of 10 it is going to check around to the raiser, who will bet whether he has anything or not. He is going to be betting right through you, into 3-5 other players. These players will often have "checked to the raiser" whether they have anything or not. You are in a horrible position -- you have no idea if it will be raised behind you. If you have a marginal hand that you want to play for one bet but not 2+, you are just guessing. If you have a monster that wants to build a pot, you don't really have any good options. Your best one is probably to call and hope someone raises behind you. If you have a good (not great) hand that wants to eliminate players, you are probably raising, but the problem here is that the checks to the raiser do not really indicate weakness (since many players will check anything to the raiser here) so you could very well be raising into the nuts. All the normal problems that are attributed to early position apply here, since, by checking to the raiser, everyone else has put you in (effectively) 2nd seat, despite the fact that you have the button.

Admittedly, this concept comes up more in mid-limit play than low-limit, but I think it's one of the most important pre-flop concepts that people don't really understand.

I actually just bought that book, but haven't gotten to reading it yet (I'm working on fast tournament strategy right now.)

I do tighten up in a really loose game, but that's relative to my play style. I play very similar to how you described as far as hand selection (in a looser game) but I play far, far looser in a tighter game.

Well, if a game is overly-tight, I'm stealing as much as I think I can get away with. Games like that seem to be rare, though (in limit, anyway). I am pretty much only a limit player; I have never quite managed to wrap my head around no limit.

The book (Small Stakes Hold'em) is really, really good. It's the only one I've ever read that really explains the key concepts for big pots in limit games. A lot of it is non-obvious. The best part is, when you are playing big pots well, you look like a maniac in a lot of cases, which is GREAT for your image.

Yeah, I pretty much play no limit exclusively (well, nobody I play with seems to like PLO, and especially not 7 card stud, so I have very little practice with those games.) I've played limit hold'em, but only once way before I really knew anything about stuff like pot odds, etc. And I was also playing a completely unbeatable game, $1-2 with 4 or 5 dollar rake. But I got on a ridiculous lucky streak and kept flopping the nuts (almost every hand) so I still made like 50 bucks. After that I started reading a little about Poker.

It's improved my game a lot, but I've still got lots of work to do.