Loose or Tight - which is best?

[Flyer35]

This has no doubt been debated a million times over the years here, but I'm bored so here goes. I'm pretty sure the theory leans towards tight, but the reality is when I look at a final table it's usually the guys playing the most hands who are there in the first place, and of those the loosest tend to have the biggest stacks. Occasionally there's a really tight guy who's been lucky mixed in, but usually not, and he usually doesn't win.

What are you seeing?

 

[csabika94]

Ezt kétségtelenül már milliószor vitatták az évek során, de unatkozom, szóval itt a vége. Elég biztos vagyok benne, hogy az elmélet a feszes játék felé hajlik, de a valóság az, hogy amikor egy döntő asztalt nézek, általában azok a srácok vannak ott, akik a legtöbb kezet játsszák, és közülük a leglazábbaknak vannak a legnagyobb zsetonjai. Alkalmanként akad egy igazán feszes srác, akinek szerencséje volt, de általában nem, és általában nem nyer.

Mit látsz?

Obviously, at the beginning of the competition there is an opportunity to be more relaxed! Then you need to be tighter ☺️

 

[Baco]

I think the answer is “it depends.” Tight vs loose by itself doesn’t win — good aggression and decision quality do. A tight player who never applies pressure will get blinded out, while a loose player without discipline will eventually spew.

At final tables, you often see looser players with big stacks because they’ve been able to apply pressure, steal more, and benefit from variance along the way. But over the long run, the players who win consistently are usually selectively loose and aggressive, especially in position.

Purely tight players can survive, but adaptable players who adjust to stack sizes, opponents, and ICM tend to do best.

 

[Newzooozooo]

This has no doubt been debated a million times over the years here, but I'm bored so here goes. I'm pretty sure the theory leans towards tight, but the reality is when I look at a final table it's usually the guys playing the most hands who are there in the first place, and of those the loosest tend to have the biggest stacks. Occasionally there's a really tight guy who's been lucky mixed in, but usually not, and he usually doesn't win.

What are you seeing?

But I see it the other way around. Players who play a lot of hands, play a wide range, are essentially playing the lottery. There are players who try to play more than 70% of hands, and although they may make it to the final table, this style of play prevents them from winning the tournament because they can't hold back and continue playing when they should fold.

 

[Prophet]

You must play both...
Loose against passive opponents
Tight against loose opponents

 

[Poker Orifice]

I think the answer is “it depends.” Tight vs loose by itself doesn’t win — good aggression and decision quality do. A tight player who never applies pressure will get blinded out, while a loose player without discipline will eventually spew.

At final tables, you often see looser players with big stacks because they’ve been able to apply pressure, steal more, and benefit from variance along the way. But over the long run, the players who win consistently are usually selectively loose and aggressive, especially in position.

Purely tight players can survive, but adaptable players who adjust to stack sizes, opponents, and ICM tend to do best.

Great answer!!

Vote to end thread!

@Flyer35 this is your answer right here!

 

[hardongear]

Great answer!!

Vote to end thread!

@Flyer35 this is your answer right here!

Yep...I really can't thing of a single thing to add either. Flyer Baco covered it.

Voted seconded.

Cheers!!!

 

[Ruslan L]

Tight - the more promising option.
Of course, a lot depends on the format, structure, and stage of the tournament, but players who play more Loose take greater risks, and the game itself requires greater concentration.

 

[VickyFuzz]

Hey! So, tight is definitely "safest," but being aggressive is how you win. Think of it as "surviving vs. thriving." Tight players cash more often, but loose players build the stacks needed to actually close it out. You're seeing survivorship bias: for every LAG with a mountain of chips, ten others probably busted early trying to get there. Modern strategy leans toward "calculated aggression." It's not about playing junk; it's about stealing the small pots that nits give up. In top-heavy tournaments, those extra chips buy you "kill equity" later. So if you want the gold, you've gotta be willing to mix it up!

 

[ankurdholakiya]

A lot of this is survivorship bias. We remember the loose players who run deep, not the many who bust early.

“Tight vs loose” alone doesn’t decide much. Tight-passive won’t win, and loose-undisciplined will spew. The players who consistently do well are selectively loose and aggressive, especially in position and as stacks get shorter.

It’s less about one style and more about knowing when to switch gears.

 

[stil370]

I once read on this forum the definition of a good poker player and I have never forgotten the answer. That person said it was the "ability to adjust to any kind of table"
Im indirectly saying that its a combination of both (tight/loose) depending on the situation.

 

[DarkSage]

In my experience, you don't want to be too loose. You'll likely need to be very aggressive to sustain it, and even though you might become a big stack doing that for a while, you only have to miss once or twice to loose it all.

On the other hand you don't want to be too tight neither, because you won't have that many good hands sometimes for that to be enough and you also become very predictable playing only super hands, easily avoidable.

The secret is to find a balance in between. Play strong hands enough to be respected, but mix it with some marginal hands to confuse your opponents.
This balance will be defined by the field you're playing, your stack size and how much aggressive you want to be, among other things.

I myself, usually tend to be between 20% and 40% of VPIP. Sometimes it might be lower or higher than this interval, depending also on the hands you're drawing, but this is the interval where I tend to be confortable playing.

But I admire aggressive players that manage to play 50% or more of their hands. Some of them are really good, although I don't think its easy to get to that level of proficiency. You must be a very good reader, know ranges very well and dominate bet sizes on both preflop and postflop.

At the beggining I think you'll likely want to be tight, after your field understand that you're not "messing around" it'll become easier to apply some pressure and steal more. kkk

 

[burba]

It really depends on the tournament you’re playing. In a freeroll, you can afford to be a bit looser since the risk is lower, and experimenting with aggression can pay off. In a $109 buy-in, though, tighter and more calculated play is usually wiser because the stakes are higher and mistakes are costly. Your stack size, table dynamics, and stage of the tournament also affect how aggressive or tight you should be. Ultimately, balancing aggression with caution based on these factors is key to long-term success.

 

[Kidkododo]

I'de say Tight seems safer to me

 

[Kasztor007]

Neither style is best by itself. Tight-passive survives but doesn’t win. Loose-undisciplined busts. Winners adapt: they’re selectively loose and aggressive when pressure works, tight when it doesn’t. It’s about timing and adjustment, not VPIP.

 

[Stringy]

start off loose and get tighter

 

[TeUnit]

Adapt to your opponents, exploit when you can -GTO when you cant.

 

[Rosylly]

Flexible and aggressive

 

[valanddon]

Playing tight poker will keep you winning more than losing.

 

[Macaroon]

The great advantage of playing tight, especially in a single-table event is that once everyone realises tghat you are playing tight, you can eventually start picking up pots that you wouldn't normally play, because your opponents assume that you play only premium hands. That was how Dan Harrington used to play.

 

[Shooter74]

Tight Agressive, off course!!