How Aggressive?

Those who play no-limit hold 'em are probably familiar with the four types of poker players:

Tight Passives ("Rocks"). They play few hands (good ones) and usually check or call when they do, raising only if they have the immortal nuts. They're timid and ultimately unsuccessful players. You can bluff and bully them to no end. But it's hard to make money off them because they fold at the slightest hint of aggression. Naturally, they don't make much money themselves.

Loose Passives ("Calling Stations"). They play lots of hands (even marginal and bad ones) but seldom raise, preferring to check and call in hopes that their hand will improve and win. You want these people at your table more than any other type of player: a guaranteed source of revenue. They chase straight draws, flush draws, for wrong pot odds, and don't like to fold. But because of this, it's hard to bluff them. You have to bet for value. They're bad poker players ("fish") and lose money religiously.

Tight Aggressives ("Killers"). They play few hands (good ones) and go for the jugular when they do, raising and reraising to build pots and take them down. You don't want too many of them at your table, because they don't give much action (though they can be bluffed because of this) but mean business when they finally come after you. Their predictability can be their weakness if they don't loosen up occasionally. And because they sit around waiting for good hands, they have a hard time laying them down when they're beat.

Loose Aggressives ("Maniacs"). They play lots of hands (even marginal and bad ones) and want to dominate the table by raising and reraising, with a lot of bluffing and semi-bluffing -- and they're hard to bluff in turn. You'll fear and resent them if you're a timid player, but love them if you're experienced because of the revenue they provide. They're the center of attention at the table: they win big, lose big, and crave action.

Most poker books and online sources (see here and here for example) recommend the tight-aggressive style of playing, and that's certainly the one I'd advise for beginners. If you play tight-aggressive, then you play "good poker". You play the right hands from the right positions and are patient enough to fold and sit out the rest. You raise and fold more often than you check and call. That's the solid wisdom taught in great books like Phil Gordon's Little Green Book and Dan Harrington's three-volume classic. But in recent years more experts have been promoting loose aggressive as the superior style. Which is it?

I agree with this strategist who advocates loose aggressive as the style you eventually want to master. Tight aggressives (like tight passives) have an Achilles' heel underscored by Doyle Brunson: "they don't get their really good hands paid off because they make a move so rarely that their hands are an open-book whenever they do." (Super System, p 422) Tight players can be predictable and thus easy to avoid. True, they're not prone to lose money like loose players; but they may not make much either -- especially in today's world where hold 'em has become so popular that everyone plays tight aggressive. Loose players have an advantage because people are never sure what they're holding.

But loose aggressive a difficult and dangerous style to play (trust me, I've only begun trying to master it). Amateurs who try dominating the table this way are bound to lose their stacks. They're called "maniacs" for a reason. If you don't know what you're doing, it's only a question of time before your bankroll gets smashed. But with enough practice you can really make this style work for you. If you're a good psychologist and know your opponents, use the right mixture of bluffs and semi-bluffs -- and know precisely when to tighten up in the right doses when people start coming after you -- then the loose aggressive style becomes very profitable.

You have to be willing to lose battles so you can win the war. Occasionally I'll make myself look like an idiot and call with bad cards so people won't take me seriously. Then it's only a matter of time before I get paid off. Sometimes I'll play a hand without even looking at it. As Mike Caro emphasizes in his new book, you want people to think you're stupid. It serves you in the long run.

While I personally think loose aggressives have the edge in no-limit hold 'em, it's possible to be play either style of aggression and be successful -- so long as you can switch gears and play the opposite style when you need to. Think of tight/loose as being on a sliding scale. It's the poles you want to avoid. Play too solid and you'll become frustrated when everyone shuts down on you or you get bad-beat. Play like a kamikaze and you'll lose loads of money through stupidity. Find your style, but change gears often enough so that people can't figure you out. Phil Gordon, Howard Lederer, and Dan Harrington are tight aggressive players. Doyle Brunson, Gus Hansen, and Dan Negreanu are loose aggressive. But none is a slave to his style. Good players, especially the pros, always adapt and do the unexpected. The key is aggression. Passive players don't stand a chance.