Which table is tougher for you: Aggressive or Tight?

[veryluckyfish7k]

I’m curious what most players struggle with more.
For me, an aggressive table feels harder because it forces you to defend wider and take high-variance spots. But on a tight table, it’s also tricky to extract value and avoid falling asleep.

Which one gives you more trouble — facing constant aggression or waiting forever for someone to play back?

Aggro tables, no doubt. Tight tables are predictable, but maniacs make every spot a sweat.

 

[Sos1l]

Aggressive play style is seen as superior for a reason... it puts opponents in tougher positions. For me personally, if it's unskilled aggressive players, it's annoying because you have to stay disciplined and calm. If it's good aggressive payers, it's tough because you are in a pond with sharks. Tight tables can be tough too as you barely get paid on your good hands, but at least you get to steal way more.

I also get annoyed by the unclassified aggressive players, because due to their stupid aggression the game becomes pointlessly complicated and becomes bingo poker, or guess what. I like the skill-based combat in the game, everything else is annoying.

 

[Sos1l]

IMO, the question is not precise enough and allows any answer depending on interpretation. The players can be aggressive and tight at the same time.
See:
Opposite to Agressive is Passive.
Opposite to Tight is Loose.

I only mean TAG LAG & NIT

 

[Sos1l]

Of course, facing aggressive opponents is more challenging, as they're much harder to understand and structure/systematize. With "nits", however, it's completely different—it's the easiest game in life: if players calls the turn, their weakest hand is a draw, or second pair (never third pair) which gives a clear picture of their range, etc.

Good answer, I really liked it👏🤝
Nit play only with nuts cards, with little bluffing because they know how to wait, and semi-bluff bets are often made to win early or get more chips to on the river

 

[Sos1l]

Honestly, each type of table has its own problems. An aggressive table is more exhausting because you feel forced to defend and get into spots you didn’t really want to play. One wrong decision can cost you a big chunk of your stack really fast.
But a tight table is a different kind of struggle… it feels like time is frozen, and it’s hard to build a stack because everyone is playing ABC poker and nobody gives you value even when you have a strong hand.

For me? I think the aggressive table is a bit tougher, because it forces you to make hard decisions under pressure. A tight table is boring, yes, but at least it’s easier to control

I completely understand you.
Against aggressive players, you're often forced to defend, and sooner or later you'll find yourself in a difficult situation where either Hero calls or Hero folds, overfolds, or overcalls. Aggressive players are very difficult to read; even if you win big pots against them, there's a good chance you'll lose them back. Tight players are easier to read.But it is extremely difficult to take money from them, and your Nastya AA, Kk, Aks or Qq They're wasted preflop, one after another. And on the postflop a set оr trips or a straight will only give you action if they have something to fight for, too.

 

[dompoker]

For the aggressive one, because you don't know when you can have a good hand and when you don't have one, you won't let you play, you would risk one to equalize your stakes, but the conservative one doesn't, but you have to always be careful.

 

[Sos1l]

Claro! Aqui está apenas o texto em inglês, pronto para copiar e colar:

---

Good morning, everyone. A conservative table is definitely the hardest one, especially on the final table. There are some tables where people only play for value. And that makes things tough, because you stay on the FT for a long time and nobody busts.


The blinds keep going up and up, and soon everyone is short. It has already happened to me to stay over an hour on a final table without a single player busting. More than an hour playing and nobody was knocked out. It was unbelievable on WPT Global.


Then people say, “Oh, if everyone is only playing value, you should grab some blockers, like an Ax or a Kx, and try to steal the blinds.” But the problem is: the players also have value hands. And that ends up hurting your tournament. It hurts your profit, because you’re taking unnecessary risks.


You’re there among the top stacks — second, third — everyone is more or less even. Then you misplay one small hand, lose a pot you shouldn’t, and boom… you drop to ninth or eighth, or even get eliminated.


So that’s something I learned: in micro stakes and freerolls, you just have to play for value.

---

Hi. I really like playing on wpt g because the players there are Smarter than on 888p ,pokerstars And especially in Coin Poker. I'm not a tournament fan, but I play quite often, and everything you said happened to me too. I'm not a fan of throwing money around and In decisive moments, anyone should play only with a strong hand in order not to give the opponent a chance.

 

[Sos1l]

None of them... my lack of ability is to make a bluff

Yeah, I'm not good at it either, but when necessary and possible, I use it. You just need to bluff less so that the big and necessary bluffs get through.

 

[Sos1l]

Not aggressive lost all the time

I understand you😂

 

[Sos1l]

Personally the aggressive tables are more uncomfortable to play at. I prefer playing against tight players

Yes, I also play better and more comfortably against tight players.

 

[Sos1l]

Apparently aggressive, although sometimes they are difficult to get along with.

It is very difficult to deal with them. It's not like you understand that they're pushing or reraising on the postflop, set, doper, draw, bluff, or just hand worst than your

 

[Sos1l]

It’s hard for me to play at an aggressive table. To survive there, you need to get good cards often, otherwise you just get crushed. But at a tight table, I can wait patiently for the right moment.

Yes, not only good cards, but also hitting postflop, otherwise their bluffs will crush you.

 

[rhoudini]

I actually prefer the aggressive tables, even though they can be high variance. At least you know the money is gonna move around, and you get paid when you finally hit a monster. On the other hand, tight tables feel like you’re grinding in slow motion and if you open too much, everyone instantly pegs you as “the active one”. That dynamic always throws me off a bit more.

 

[OnyxD]

I also get annoyed by the unclassified aggressive players, because due to their stupid aggression the game becomes pointlessly complicated and becomes bingo poker, or guess what. I like the skill-based combat in the game, everything else is annoying.

Bingo is a good comparison haha. I am perfectly happy seeing that I called/got called when I am ahead, but I am not so happy being run over and eliminated. So if you choose to call them looser, which is justified, you will get higher variance and in freeze-outs or later stage MTTs it's particularly irritating. If you choose to wait for a top hand to "catch them", also a solid strategy, variance is lower but you will miss lots of stack-increasing opportunities. And what I hate most is getting a good hand run over by a longshot reducing my stack to average or bottom half instead of top 5, then seeing how that guy gives away my chips to everyone else at the table due top his poor skill/lack of luck against the others . I find consolation in reading well when I am ahead and enticing a guy to put all his chips in a bad situation for him.

 

[Mario7]

I only mean TAG LAG & NIT

OK- in such case I prefer to play against LAGs first and NITs as the second choice.

Against LAGs staying tight and waiting for the good spot to use their aggression against them. LAGs are the biggest potential to make money.

Against NITs just loosing a bit, playing agressively and fold if they start raising. Easier, but not big chances for winning a big pot - they will most probably fold when you bet big and they do not have the nuts.

TAG is the hardest type of player to play against.

 

[Sos1l]

Bingo is a good comparison haha. I am perfectly happy seeing that I called/got called when I am ahead, but I am not so happy being run over and eliminated. So if you choose to call them looser, which is justified, you will get higher variance and in freeze-outs or later stage MTTs it's particularly irritating. If you choose to wait for a top hand to "catch them", also a solid strategy, variance is lower but you will miss lots of stack-increasing opportunities. And what I hate most is getting a good hand run over by a longshot reducing my stack to average or bottom half instead of top 5, then seeing how that guy gives away my chips to everyone else at the table due top his poor skill/lack of luck against the others . I find consolation in reading well when I am ahead and enticing a guy to put all his chips in a bad situation for him.

And what I hate most is getting a good hand run over by a longshot reducing my stack to average or bottom half instead of top 5, then seeing how that guy gives away my chips to everyone else at the table due top his poor skill/lack of luck against the others

Yes, ,you opened a really interesting topic, and I understand your dark humor very well from experience. You open with 10bb KK, everyone folds, and someone reraises you. You call and the flop comes 7t3 rainbow. You bet half the pot and he shoves. You think maybe he has AA, he's playing too confidently.You look at his VPIP & PFR stats and realize he's a maniac. You call him and there's show A2о 😂. The turn is blank and the river is, of course, an ace. And then you watch with anger in your eyes as he hands out your chips left and right, entering 3-bet pots with 22 57o k4s jto t8s, etc., and after that comes a disgusting feeling of rage and frustration.And the enthusiasm is lost and your game is coming to an end, because the blinds are so big that it is better for a loose open than tight fold.And so your stack, which you earned with blood, is then gone forever, and your 5-hour tournament goes down the drain😢💔

 

[Sos1l]

OK- in such case I prefer to play against LAGs first and NITs as the second choice.

Against LAGs staying tight and waiting for the good spot to use their aggression against them. LAGs are the biggest potential to make money.

Against NITs just loosing a bit, playing agressively and fold if they start raising. Easier, but not big chances for winning a big pot - they will most probably fold when you bet big and they do not have the nuts.

TAG is the hardest type of player to play against.

I agree, lag will open T5s A7o q10o And he can call your push with JJ TT A10s But Nit and Tag will never do this and thus will not allow you to play against them from above

 

[Sos1l]

I actually prefer the aggressive tables, even though they can be high variance. At least you know the money is gonna move around, and you get paid when you finally hit a monster. On the other hand, tight tables feel like you’re grinding in slow motion and if you open too much, everyone instantly pegs you as “the active one”. That dynamic always throws me off a bit more.

Yes, there are pros and cons against every type of player. For me, a Nit is better than a Lag. Because a Nit will open 3bet with an AKs and play like a he haven't top pair top kikcker and waiting for you to bluff.And lag will 4bet his own Qjs As if he has kings and will play as if he flopped quads, and it's annoying and confusing and makes you fold very strong hands.

 

[Sos1l]

Aggro tables, no doubt. Tight tables are predictable, but maniacs make every spot a sweat.

Yes, maniacs are unpleasant players from the point of view of a professional approach to the game, but if they Fall into your trap, they provide you with an easy big win.And of course, there's a downside. Since they bluff so often, you're always doubting the strength of their hand and generally undervaluing it. This isn't always the case, and sometimes you fall into their trap. because this time he doesn't have third pair but top set from the flop )

 

[Viking26]

You addapt for bouth....

 

[bowserdon]

Aggresive is hard to play call or fold???

 

[fundiver199]

You are mixing up terms. The opposite of aggressive is passive, and the opposite of tight is loose. Aggressive means betting or raising more often than calling, while passive is the opposite. In my opinion there is no dought, that a passive player is easier to play against, because they allow you to control the action and dont put you in tough spot by for instance raising you on the flop or turn.

Tight on the other hand means only playing the best hands, while loose means playing a lot of hands. A tight player might need a hand as strong as 99+ or AQ to even enter the pot UTG. While a loose player will enter the pot from UTG with a lot more hands like AT+, broadways, suited aces, suited connectors and any pair.

Tight players are easy to play against, because they mostly just fold preflop. Loose players force you to see flops and battle it out with them, and they are more difficult to put on a range, because they can have more random two pair or gutshots or whatever. But its also potentially far more profitable to play against loose players, so they are still the ones, you should be looking for when selecting games.

 

[Aballinamion]

I’m curious what most players struggle with more.
For me, an aggressive table feels harder because it forces you to defend wider and take high-variance spots. But on a tight table, it’s also tricky to extract value and avoid falling asleep.

Which one gives you more trouble — facing constant aggression or waiting forever for someone to play back?

I believe your intention was to ask if we prefer playing at a table that's more loose-aggressive or one that's more tight-aggressive. If that was your question, then my answer is: neither.
If a table has even one loose-aggressive (LAG) player, it seriously messes with my ability to play my game. I want to avoid players who are 3-betting every other hand or raising on the flop/turn and shoving the river. I don't want to get into leveling wars with LAGs. I also don't want to be constantly facing tight-aggressive (TAG) players, whether they're solid regs or total NITs. My winrate against those types of players is usually just break-even, or a slight loss.
The ultimate goal of poker is to make a profit, right? To make a profit, we have to play against players who are worse than us, players we have a clear edge against. Otherwise, we're just wasting our time, or trying to stroke our ego by saying we can beat this or that LAG, or this or that regular TAG. The point isn't to beat a certain type of player.
I repeat this all the time, and I never get tired of it, because by repeating it, I'm teaching myself and reminding myself of the most important thing: we should be playing in position against weaker players. And the weaker players are the LAPs—the Loose Passive players. The ones who call way too much, almost never raise, and when they do, it's purely for value. The ones who are always sitting with a short stack (I'm just thinking about cash games here). Those are the players I can have an edge against and maintain a decent winrate. They're the ones who actually let us print money.

Did I get that right, was that the gist of your question?

 

[Sos1l]

You addapt for bouth....

👏👏👏Well said. Poker is a game of adaptation.And this is possible when you progress in the game,outside of the game.

 

[Sos1l]

I believe your intention was to ask if we prefer playing at a table that's more loose-aggressive or one that's more tight-aggressive. If that was your question, then my answer is: neither.
If a table has even one loose-aggressive (LAG) player, it seriously messes with my ability to play my game. I want to avoid players who are 3-betting every other hand or raising on the flop/turn and shoving the river. I don't want to get into leveling wars with LAGs. I also don't want to be constantly facing tight-aggressive (TAG) players, whether they're solid regs or total NITs. My winrate against those types of players is usually just break-even, or a slight loss.
The ultimate goal of poker is to make a profit, right? To make a profit, we have to play against players who are worse than us, players we have a clear edge against. Otherwise, we're just wasting our time, or trying to stroke our ego by saying we can beat this or that LAG, or this or that regular TAG. The point isn't to beat a certain type of player.
I repeat this all the time, and I never get tired of it, because by repeating it, I'm teaching myself and reminding myself of the most important thing: we should be playing in position against weaker players. And the weaker players are the LAPs—the Loose Passive players. The ones who call way too much, almost never raise, and when they do, it's purely for value. The ones who are always sitting with a short stack (I'm just thinking about cash games here). Those are the players I can have an edge against and maintain a decent winrate. They're the ones who actually let us print money.

Did I get that right, was that the gist of your question?

I really missed you. And I was very happy when I saw that you wrote a comment.
You always write in such an educational and informative way, so for me it’s a pleasure to read your comments.😊

The point of my question was this:
No matter what we do, it’s impossible to avoid playing against LAGs and TAGs forever.
If you have AKs or JJ and you make a 4bb raise, and a LAG re-raises you — you can’t just fold a hand like that only because a LAG or TAG 3-bet you. They can easily be re-raising with hands that are weaker than yours, and I’ve seen this many times.

And also, postflop can go well for you — you hit a nut straight, or top set — and then the best strategy is often to check and let them bluff, letting them hang themselves so you can take the maximum. Because LAGs play greedily; they want to win every pot they can, constantly applying pressure with semi-bluffs and big bets.

Of course, the whole profit in poker comes from players who are weaker than you.
That’s the whole meaning of playing — to be a winning player and earn money.
And to earn without losing, you must play against players who are worse than you. That’s a golden rule in poker.

But we don’t always have the luxury of playing only against weaker opponents.
We must also know how to play against strong players. That’s the important part.

If you sit at a table with one fish, one nit, one TAG, and one LAG — you can reduce the number of confrontations against the stronger players, but you can’t avoid them completely. Sometimes you’ll be ahead, sometimes behind — but never playing against them at all is also a mistake if you have a hand with real potential.

So my question is:
When you do end up playing a pot against a nit, a LAG, or a TAG — which type is the most uncomfortable for you personally?

For me, it’s the LAG.
Because with them, you can continue only when the postflop is good for you — when you have something strong to hold onto and get value from.
If a TAG raises you postflop, he usually has a reason for it.
But a LAG is chaotic — he plays against you, not against your cards.
He likes to bluff a lot and very skillfully, and he can make you fold top pair, two pair, a set, or a strong draw.


"If a table has even one loose-aggressive (LAG) player, it seriously messes with my ability to play my game. I want to avoid players who are 3-betting every other hand or raising on the flop/turn and shoving the river. I don't want to get into leveling wars with LAGs. I also don't want to be constantly facing tight-aggressive (TAG) players, whether they're solid regs or total NITs. My winrate against those types of players is usually just break-even, or a slight loss."

I understand you very well. Many good players and coaches recommend avoiding playing pots against regulars (LAGs & TAGs), because it’s unprofitable in the long run and mathematically not a winning strategy.

When playing with them, you are in the best case either close to zero or a slight plus.I think it's better to play with them when you have a strong hand. (AA KK AKs QQ JJ AQs)I think it's better to wait with them and open from the top, or if there's a good hit (trips flush straight), then continue. In all other cases, the risk of losing stack weight is very high.