Sos1l
Rock Star
Silver Level
You won't clarify the question
Sos1l
Rock Star
Silver Level
Yes, you're right.thank you for Explanation. Since loose players open up more often and weaker than passive ones, it's better to play with them through re-raise because it's with KQ QJ JT He may bet big
v your AQ AK AJ KJ. And the passive players are honest players, and yes they are convenient because they allow you to control the bank and not take unnecessary risks. "You are higher, okay, that means the bank is yours, I am higher, that means let me take mine."They play carefully and cautiously, bluff little, and want to risk their stack as little as possible.
Last edited:
Sos1l
Rock Star
Silver Level
I agree with you
Sos1l
Rock Star
Silver Level
That's right. At aggressive tables, when you win, you win a big pot — but when you lose, you lose big as well. Naturally, your heart rate goes up, adrenaline kicks in, and your focus intensifies. It feels like you're engaged in something truly important. A win becomes a celebration, a reason to be proud of your skills and your courage.And there's a complete adventure there, where you're the main character and you're going through the jungle, and there are plenty of predators, lots of risky openings from unfavorable positions, forced bluffs,Lots of folds with good hands and lots of uncomfortable situations.
And losses hit hard. It's painful to lose a full stack, especially because of a bad beat or a cooler.
At passive tables, everything slows down: check-check, check-call, raise-fold. The pace is dull and heavy. It literally makes me sleepy because the tempo is so passive and slow.
But I believe we need to go through both types of situations. Poker isn’t chocolate — or rather, it’s chocolate with onions inside. Whether we like it or not, eventually we'll get a bite of bitterness too
Sos1l
Rock Star
Silver Level
Yes, self-defense is just as important as the ability to attack.
Sos1l
Rock Star
Silver Level
Yes, there is no action or emotion, no psychological boost, and the game gets boring, and you just want to finish the hand and leave.I love dynamic games. I don't like it when my opponents get bored and I get bored with them. I would choose aggressive opponents because it's definitely not boring with them
dreamer13
Legend
Loyaler
Tables with tight opponents can be very, very profitable for those players who are able to properly adjust their strategy to these opponents.Tight players play very few hands and have a hard time parting with the premium portion of their hands.Tight players are much easier to read than loose players, but this does not necessarily mean that playing against them will be more profitable.
Sos1l
Rock Star
Silver Level
Yes, in poker, it's only easy with those who hit third pair on a wet board and reraise you, and very often bluff with trash. Everyone else has a difficult side.
Aballinamion
Dark Lord of the Sith
Bronze Level
It's not that we should never play against LAGs and TAGs, but the whole idea is to actively avoid them whenever we can. Especially the LAGs. Gotta remember that in Cash Games, we can scout the tables before we even sit down, and we're free to get up and leave whenever we want.
We can't always afford to play against weaker opponents, but in cash games we have the option to study the tables, join and leave whenever we want, and table-hop.
We definitely need to know how to play against players who are our equals or stronger—that's why all this theory exists, like psychology, bankroll management, GTO, Exploitative Play, etc. But we should never play against them with the goal of "leveling" them or winning some ego battle. Like you said, sometimes it's unavoidable, and we shouldn't underestimate any player, but we also shouldn't respect them too much, whether it's a rec fish or a solid reg. We have to play logically, not make decisions based on our ego.
The type that bothers me the most, without a doubt, are the LAGs. TAGs and NITs, for better or worse, are more predictable. We know they'll force certain situations, but they're still somewhat "controllable." The main reason is there are basically two kinds of LAGs: the maniacs and tilted players who think applying non-stop pressure is the only way to play because it intimidates everyone—and honestly, that strategy does work—and then there are the good LAGs who are solid regs with a super conservative bankroll. Those guys will have at least 100 buy-ins, which lets them play and take way more risks than players like us, who usually stick to a standard or even an aggressive bankroll strategy (around 20 buy-ins or so).
Sos1l
Rock Star
Silver Level
Thank you. You put everything in its place.👍
As Jordan Peterson says, there are three types of interaction: tyranny, slavery, and negotiation.
There are players who are “tyrants.”
You should only play against them when you hit the board really well (for example, a set), when the board is dry, and when you have the right to play check-call or check-raise.
If your opponent is a tyrant (a strong, aggressive player who is always attacking), then you become the slave — you defend, you lean toward calling, and when they make big bets on uncomfortable board textures, you end up folding just to avoid losing more.
You're absolutely right when you say it's better to avoid playing against them.
Because there are also players against whom you yourself become the tyrant — where the situation favors you.
You can be the aggressor, and they are the defensive side.
And there are players with whom you can play through negotiation —
(meaning “you can make an unspoken agreement”):
play check-check, check-call down to showdown, and either split the pot or let the stronger hand win.
No one feels robbed, and no one leaves the hand frustrated.
I understand exactly why you say we should avoid LAGs.
From my own experience, I know how aggressive they are and how they can somehow enter a 3-bet pot with complete trash (you have AKs, they have T5s) and still outplay you — either forcing you to fold your strong hand, or showing down two pair against your top pair and taking your entire stack or a huge chunk of it.
"It doesn’t matter whether it’s a fish or a strong regular —
we must play logically, not from the ego."
Logic is indeed a powerful thing. Those who possess it usually have many other strengths in life as well.
But the ego… the ego is a deeply rooted subconscious system, and we don’t always realize when it’s influencing us.
To me, it’s a central instinct — the one that gives life its meaning and constantly fights for that meaning.
After the instincts of self-preservation and reproduction, ego is the next most powerful force.
Some would even say they are almost equal in strength.
(Personality, self-esteem, self-respect, the instinct of ownership, the sense of personal importance, individual consciousness — all of these are connected to it, as philosophers have defined.)
But regardless of how we label it, the ego is constantly present in our actions, and most of the time we don’t notice its involvement.
Most people have not yet reached a level of self-awareness where they can see how the ego manipulates their decisions, impulses, and desires.
I’m the same — even though I understand my emotions, I still can’t always control myself.
It’s very difficult, but we must always keep trying.
I understand one thing: becoming someone who has true freedom of choice is extremely ambitious.
It takes years, or even decades, of mental training for logic to become stronger than the subconscious.
I’ve found a compromise: I study myself.
I try to understand all parts of my psyche, especially the emotions connected to the ego.
Instead of suppressing them brutally (as I used to do, and now regret), I’m learning to understand and accept myself.
In poker — just like everywhere else — there is a hierarchy.
And ego is the force that wants to climb to the top.
Learning to use it consciously is also a logical approach.
One way or another, it is a part of us, and we can’t simply get rid of it.
I just want to say that for 99.8% of people, it's impossible to always act according to logic. Because it’s easy to say, but very hard to actually do.
Sos1l
Rock Star
Silver Level
Thank you for your participation. I also choose the tight player. I would only choose the aggressive one if I somehow managed to see my opponents’ cards 😂If i had to pick one.. well most really good players alternate between aggressive and tight just to keep you guessing but you probably already knew that
So i'll pick tight just to answer your question.
Sos1l
Rock Star
Silver Level
So you like to wait and attack. I love this too
Sos1l
Rock Star
Silver Level
And that's why many people don't dare to sit at aggressive tables, because with just one bad run or one wrong decision you can lose everything you’ve been building and protecting for months.
Sos1l
Rock Star
Silver Level
Yes, at aggressive tables there’s a high chance that your 3-bet with AA, KK or AK will get called by hands like ATo, KJs, and so on. But at tight tables you will often see folds even from AA, KK, JJ when you open bigger than 2.5x. Some players might even fold to a min-raise or just limp. 😂
And when you have TT or AJs, the tightest player at the table 3-bets you — and in that spot you can’t call and you can’t fold, because his range is at least AK or QQ.