Changing Styles - Dr Frankenstein - or the Swan?

[Ismene]

Right - can I have your opinion please...

Naturally - I'm aggressive, but due to a few rushes to the head, and some rather appalling bullying plays on my part, I have decided to try and develop my game by trying out different styles.

Lately I have tried TAG - -which is probably the most painful thing I have ever done and I'm not even sure if it is helping or hindering my game in the long run. Furthermore, I have noticed one appalling side effect - and one that I will counter tonight should any of you be playing in the challenge lol - I find that in trying to play tight, I have become - and this is an appalling word "scared" of getting chips in the middle - even with 'good' hands. I also find that I don't enjoy the game as much, and experience far more frustration on the table than ever before.

However - it has allowed me to make some appallingly cheeky steals - with everyone believing that i have the absolute  "nuts" - which  due to desperation couldn't be further from the truth most times.


So - and here is the question - by trying out various playing styles am i playing Dr Frankenstein with my game?
Have I set about to create the perfect player, and ended up with what I believe to be some hideous deformed atrocity or am i merely being  superficial and taking it at face value: failing to explore the benefits that I have gained from a different set of skills utilised - that will in time seep into the soul of my game and create a more complex and ultimately more rewarding style of play.

(Above rambling means - I'm not cashing at the moment in tournaments - do i return to my original and most natural state - or do i continure to try and improve by experimentation whilst watching my bank roll stagnate.)

[kinboshi]

You have to be able to mix up your game.  But you'll probably have a 'style' that you're most comfortable with. 

If you're at a table with a bunch of rocks - LAG is going to pay dividends for you.  On a table full of LAGs, a tighter game can be the most profitable.  It depends really.

Also, it's difficult to tell if a change in your play was the cause of your recent results, or if that was because of variance.  You might need a bigger sample to determine that.

[HOLDorFOLD]

Lately I have tried TAG - -which is probably the most painful thing I have ever done and I'm not even sure if it is helping or hindering my game in the long run. Furthermore, I have noticed one appalling side effect - and one that I will counter tonight should any of you be playing in the challenge lol - I find that in trying to play tight, I have become - and this is an appalling word "scared" of getting chips in the middle - even with 'good' hands. I also find that I don't enjoy the game as much, and experience far more frustration on the table than ever before.

However - it has allowed me to make some appallingly cheeky steals - with everyone believing that i have the absolute  "nuts" - which  due to desperation couldn't be further from the truth most times.


So - and here is the question - by trying out various playing styles am i playing Dr Frankenstein with my game?
Have I set about to create the perfect player, and ended up with what I believe to be some hideous deformed atrocity or am i merely being  superficial and taking it at face value: failing to explore the benefits that I have gained from a different set of skills utilised - that will in time seep into the soul of my game and create a more complex and ultimately more rewarding style of play.

(Above rambling means - I'm not cashing at the moment in tournaments - do i return to my original and most natural state - or do i continure to try and improve by experimentation whilst watching my bank roll stagnate.)

Totally empathise with this.   I started out by being a bit conservative, went totally aggressive after a month then just before I went on The Open I tightened right up - to the point I also became 'scared' to put the chips in.   In the last two week I tried to be aggressive again and although i had good hands I kept getting rivered and although that's poker and it doesn't usually bother me, after continous river beats whilst reverting back to an aggressive style I wondered whether I shouldn't have done so.

On the plus side, the tight play does afford the most outrageous steals, on the down side you become a target though and a Chip Santa lol.

Last night and today I have played more agressively, but with no disruptions in the house, and I have noticed that I've been able to concentrate on the other players more - and this I feel has really been my downfall in the past months - I have not been paying as much attention to the other players as I used to.  (that and the fact I tightened up toooooooo much before).

ooooo and yes, I have cashed in the last 4 tourny's I have played so I'd say stick to your usual style, your natural flow of play as that will leave more space in the brain to concentrate on other players, pot odds and the like.

One thing that changing my style of play has taught me is that I handle short stacks better now than I used to (well I had to as I continually let myself get blinded down through the 'fear' factor). 

But don't listen to me, I'm a fish 

[kinboshi]

I find that in trying to play tight, I have become - and this is an appalling word "scared" of getting chips in the middle - even with 'good' hands.

Does this suggest that you aren't playing a truly TAG game, but are actually playing tight-passive? 

[Jon MW]

The only way to improve your game is by experimentation - but - the further you move away from your natural style the more  thought has to be spent on how you are playing rather than what you are playing, and hence the more opportunity for mistakes.

I'm currently doing the same thing the other way, trying to bring some aggression and creativity into a naturally tight game. My view is that you have to carry on with trying to improve your game rather than settle for what you've got, but with the knowledge that it will take some time before you establish the right balance between your natural game and the element you're trying to introduce into it.

[fearisthekey]

Bah-I read so much of my own game in what you said.
I'm delighted that someone else has passive bleed into their TAG style, and it's not just me. It should be called TP: Tight Para. It's trying to be tight by fearing the worst. A couple of times some players (why are they always dutch or scando?lol) noticed TP and would play back at me more than normal.
Of course, mathematically, playing TAG sets you up for being the outdrawn rather than the outdrawer = more pain.
Mathematically, people are seldom hitting big big hands, so having a tight reputation and then relying on it for well-placed steals when it suits your stack is better mathematically than being a LAG and creating a false impression and trapping. But the value in this difference is commonly smothered by psychological individual differences in your opponents, such as: their player perception skills; their ability to lay down a hand; their general skepticism; their donk rating. Their donk rating reigns supreme. If you are check raised for all your chips after betting with second pair there are few situations when you should be calling, yet so many do (explanations on a postcard). You want to have a LAG image against such players, give them rope to hang themselves. 
Very famous LAGS like Ivey and Hanson get reputations for being LAGs LAGs LAGs, but LAG for them is just the best way of playing given their primary Unique Selling Point, which is perception. You have to be uncannily good at putting people on hands and interpreting it in light of their playing style to know how people will respond when you just keep firing bullets at them. So many people observe their style, and then just maraud around games, firing at random, because this is what top LAGs seem, in their minds, to be doing.
Playing an obvious LAG and then switching back is the best way, I believe. It capitalizes on people's natural disinclination to understand that you are aware of the impression you have given of yourself and are now capitalizing it. A LAG is a LAG in their mind, never switching back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_effect

primacy effect - the order in which the trait is discovered impacts on the impression formed (first impressions). Asch (1946) gave sentences to students describing someone, the traits read either that the individual “John” was intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, and envious or that he was envious, stubborn, critical, impulsive, industrious, and intelligent.

Findings: Ss rated John more positively in the first condition

[Ismene]

Bah-I read so much of my own game in what you said.
I'm delighted that someone else has passive bleed into their TAG style, and it's not just me. It should be called TP: Tight Para. It's trying to be tight by fearing the worst. A couple of times some players (why are they always dutch or scando?lol) noticed TP and would play back at me more than normal.
Of course, mathematically, playing TAG sets you up for being the outdrawn rather than the outdrawer = more pain.
Mathematically, people are seldom hitting big big hands, so having a tight reputation and then relying on it for well-placed steals when it suits your stack is better mathematically than being a LAG and creating a false impression and trapping. But the value in this difference is commonly smothered by psychological individual differences in your opponents, such as: their player perception skills; their ability to lay down a hand; their general skepticism; their donk rating. Their donk rating reigns supreme. If you are check raised for all your chips after betting with second pair there are few situations when you should be calling, yet so many do (explanations on a postcard). You want to have a LAG image against such players, give them rope to hang themselves. 
Very famous LAGS like Ivey and Hanson get reputations for being LAGs LAGs LAGs, but LAG for them is just the best way of playing given their primary Unique Selling Point, which is perception. You have to be uncannily good at putting people on hands and interpreting it in light of their playing style to know how people will respond when you just keep firing bullets at them. So many people observe their style, and then just maraud around games, firing at random, because this is what top LAGs seem, in their minds, to be doing.
Playing an obvious LAG and then switching back is the best way, I believe. It capitalizes on people's natural disinclination to understand that you are aware of the impression you have given of yourself and are now capitalizing it. A LAG is a LAG in their mind, never switching back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_effect

primacy effect - the order in which the trait is discovered impacts on the impression formed (first impressions). Asch (1946) gave sentences to students describing someone, the traits read either that the individual “John” was intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, and envious or that he was envious, stubborn, critical, impulsive, industrious, and intelligent.

Findings: Ss rated John more positively in the first condition

"It should be called TP: Tight Para"

You are so right - that is def the name for what I've been doing - and if you will permit, I am going to steal that phrase - fantastic.

And thanks to all who have answered my post - I now know I'm not alone / mad - just a poker player trying to improve my game ;-)

[boldie]

I find that in trying to play tight, I have become - and this is an appalling word "scared" of getting chips in the middle - even with 'good' hands.

Does this suggest that you aren't playing a truly TAG game, but are actually playing tight-passive? 

yes indeed it does. I am fairly TAG (though admittedly less and less so) but never ever scared of putting my chips in the middle. If I hit I bet hard, in fact I'd much rather overbet at a pot than underbet as people tend to think you're at it more..even when they see you hardly play a hand..

[The_duke]

It has been muted that on-line I am a DAG (bleeding cheek) 

[fearisthekey]

I find that in trying to play tight, I have become - and this is an appalling word "scared" of getting chips in the middle - even with 'good' hands.

Does this suggest that you aren't playing a truly TAG game, but are actually playing tight-passive? 

yes indeed it does. I am fairly TAG

I'm the lovechild of Pope John Paul II and Winnie Mandela.

[boldie]

I find that in trying to play tight, I have become - and this is an appalling word "scared" of getting chips in the middle - even with 'good' hands.

Does this suggest that you aren't playing a truly TAG game, but are actually playing tight-passive? 

yes indeed it does. I am fairly TAG

I'm the lovechild of Pope John Paul II and Winnie Mandela.

ok..lol I'm incredibly TAG

[fearisthekey]

I find that in trying to play tight, I have become - and this is an appalling word "scared" of getting chips in the middle - even with 'good' hands.

Does this suggest that you aren't playing a truly TAG game, but are actually playing tight-passive? 

yes indeed it does. I am fairly TAG

I'm the lovechild of Pope John Paul II and Winnie Mandela.

ok..lol I'm incredibly TAG

lol. One day....

I like the idea of overbetting. My bet size is growing of late. I like my info loud and early, thank you very much.

[Ironside]

my natrual game is LAG to start with TAG in middle and LAG to finish

this weekend i went from LAG to TAP because i had so many chips and a good poistion i didnt want to blow it

i really didnt enjoy playing i was scared of races where i had 5-1 chip advantage

if i ever move into TAP mode again i will have to reasses my gears TAP is more a reverse gear and should never be used

[tikay]

Hi skrikera,

Your new style certainly serves to upset a few folks, witness last night's dreadful incident when you were so un-necessarily rude & aggrerssive to the jolly nice man to your immediate right......and not at all nice to the nice man to your immediate left.

Nice.

[Rookie (Rodney)]

Hi skrikera,

Your new style certainly serves to upset a few folks, witness last night's dreadful incident when you were so un-necessarily rude & aggrerssive to the jolly nice man to your immediate right......and not at all nice to the nice man to your immediate left.

Nice.

Yes, bang out of order she was!