Aballinamion said:
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).
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.
