after 2 years of mainly playing online poker ive had an epiphany. Hundreds of dollars spent at the bookstore buying every strategy book i could think of i have realized that you can only read so much, and that playing is what really makes or breaks a poker player. i have realized that after all of this time trying to play solid, by the book poker, it's not for me. After seeing hands played perfectly be sucked out on by the river, i've found that i needed to revamp my style of play, and i believe that i've found a holy grail for online poker, but have yet to try it out at the live game.

playing a style similar to donks is hard to do without going broke, but i believe that playing "powerhouse" hands the conventional way only leads to heartbreak when you lose to the inevitable runner runner straight flush. I have seen that by playing hands that are considered trash hands can be very profitable if done at the right time with the right style of play.

i believe that the most important and sometimes underestimated factor in almost all forms of poker that i've played is Position. i've found that when i am on the button or one off of the button i can play any to cards even for a moderate raise, and on hands where i have seen aggression ahead of me, if pot odds justify it, i like to call with almost all hands, at least if i can afford it and still retain a fairly large stack.

another position i play from more often than not is under the gun. the reason i play from early position is it gives me the chance to become the aggressor, even if with "junk" hands. we've all seen that the continuation bet can be the factor that decides who takes down a pot, and if you are in position to make the first bet, you will have the biggest chance to take down the pot. now just because i say it's sometimes correct to play junk hands from up front, doesn't mean that i don't believe you should be able to lay down hands to a reraise, especially to solid players who you put on a big hand.

now i believe that by playing these unconventional hands with pure aggression you are going to get played back at more often than not, and you need a way to defend against that, and that's where the by the book poker comes into play. big hands will make you the most money with my new style, because since you play so much junk, you will always have people playing you, but these are the hands you must be most aggressive with, in order to make it a headsup pot.

if you are in early position and have a big hand, and you raise (as you should) do not reraise others behind you if you are played back, because most of the time you will not eliminate players, and i think you need to learn to lay hands like this down when you do not hit the premium flop.
most people have enormous problems laying down aces, kings, and queens to dangerous flops, i believe this is one of the biggest misteps of any that a player can make.

now i'm not saying that the conventional plays are wrong, i think they will later be the only way you will survive the tourney. after you have projected a wild, loose cannon image, you can revert back to your by the book strategy, and use it to survive, and hopefully win

i just needed to vent because my roommates are close minded, "by the book" players who believe deviating from general strategy in any game is a huge mistake. in the last 5 mtt i have played i've used my new way of thinking to great avail, getting in the money and in the top five spots 4/5 times.

i wanted to hear others ideas on playing loose, limping in more situations, rather than playing "by the book"

if the correct way was to play by the book, everyone here would be playing NL1000.
I think the 'book' way of playing is great for when u first learn to play, but you must develop your own style of play and learn from experience when to make moves.
I'm not saying that 'book' play is wrong, it just needs personal adaptation via experience

Your ideas are great, but they won't apply to all situations, just like playing by the book doesn't always turn out to best. If you're at a really loose table, doing something like opening with junk under the gun is just -EV. No need to advertise when the product is already flying off the shelf.

In a nutshell, the books will tell you what hands/situations are good and why. They're pretty much basic strategy guides for playing when you have no information about your opponents. If you want to get to the next level, you need to be able to collect, create, and act on information. It seems like you already understand that though.



I don't see how this could be correct. If I raise with aces UTG and someone reraises, I'm moving in. Even with KK or QQ it can be correct to push depending on the situation. Don't make the mistake of playing scared poker. People will outflop your big pairs and catch their runner runners, but as long as you make them pay the price with value bets and raises, you win.

I make some pretty LAG plays to generate action from some of the tighter players, and alot of times I can get my opponents to put in their whole stacks with the second best hand on the flop because of my previous actions. Sometimes they outdraw me on the turn or river... oh well. Life goes on, and someone else will attempt to donate their stack shortly.

Players like Ivey and Ungar master/ed this style of play, and thats why theyre the best ever. However, it is much easier SAID than DONE successfully, and the majority of people fail at it.

If you try to employ this style of play, good luck to you. If all else fails, it will definetly be a great learning experience.

the idea of not reraising after being played back at is mostly concerned with online games although i do believe at times it is necessary, and correct, to push with premium hands, but i have seen that, since employing this strat there is little i achieve by reraising, in that all who had called will almost always continue to call, especially in a fast blind scenario type tourney.

I think of this like "always, sometimes, or never."

If you're ever discussing poker with a fellow poker player, and in their zeal to prove their worth to you, they'll tell you they "always" do something, or they "never" do something.

And immediately it sets my mind to thinking "what situations can I construct to exploit this tendency."

Some are pretty extreme. If someone never folds aces preflop, then I've got to play with them in a satellite, get to the bubble with the massive chip lead, and have them in a close second, and move in on them preflop. That's what I have to do to exploit this tendency.

But you get the idea.

P.S. I answered no to the poll question. More than 50% of the out-of-the-box styles I've seen are downright stupid. Or, they're written in such a constipated way that it comes across to other people as being equivalent to "stupid."

But I generally agree with the premises in your post. Keep up the good work.