In defense of tight play

Posted Jun 12th 2006 7:18PM by Wil Wheaton
Filed under: Poker for Beginners, Strategy, Road to the 2006 WSOP

There is some great discussion around my last post, and we're talking about the relative merits of taking some chances early on to chip up, or wait for a big hand a little later on, when you may have a good amount of chips, but a an M that hasn't seen the Green Zone since the Lindy Hop was cutting edge and sent parents into a tizzy.

A few hours ago, my copy of Harrington on Hold'em Volume Three: The Longest Title In The History of Poker Books arrived, and while I worked through the problems (I'm currently getting an "A", thankyouverymuch) I came across the following bit, which supports my instincts to stay tight early on. I've paraphrased it enough to keep stay within fair use guidelines:
You start with 2000 in chips. You fool around a bit at the beginning with loose calls, and your stack drops to 1600. Now you catch a pair of kings, and get all-in with a big stack at your table, who holds queens. Your hand holds up because you weren't playing CJ, and you double up! Bingo! What's the problem? Come on, Chachi! What's the problem? Are you going to cry, Private Pyle?!

You now have 3200. The problem? You would have had 4000 if you hadn't squandered those chips earlier, numbnuts. Your early loose play has, almost invisibly, cost you 800, or about a quarter of your current stack.

Okay, maybe Dan Harrington doesn't talk like R. Lee Ermey from Full Metal Jacket, but you get the point, right? That's from problem one, on page eight. Obviously, Action Dan thinks there's something to playing smart and tight, so you preserve as many chips as possible to maximize your doubling up, as well as your folding equity. It reminds me of a few times when I've been a tourney, and I've "gotten cute" with a hand that I shouldn't have played, and later on when I have a hand that I could use to make a move, or I've been in a position to double up, I really miss those chips that I "cuted" away.

Reader Comments

(Page 1)

1. The kings may never come. When you finally get them and cheerfully raise, everyone that has been watching you play tight will put you on a hand and most likely toss their marginal hands into the muck. Some additional food for thought: maybe those initial loose calls created an image that allowed you to double up with your KK--so perhaps you created equity for yourself by participating in the action. I think the real key is to be as pliable as you can based upon the current dynamics of the game. When the game is too loose of course you should hunker down a bit and be aggressive with your good hands.
I think Harrington's style works very well when the cards do come at the opportune time. I think it is an awesome place to start and not get into too much trouble. Personally, I have read his books and am trying to build my strategy up from there.
I'm not saying to play loosey goosey, but you should be looking at a certain percentage of flops on the cheap, particularly when you have position.

Posted at 8:32PM on Jun 12th 2006 by joshman

2. Your quote from the book already meets the majority of the fair use prongs. It's (A) Educational and non-commercial; (B) Insubstantial in size from the whole; (C) The effect on the potential market is non-competitive [often enough all by itself].

You are more than able to use the full quote as-is. Though because you did not quote it word-for-word, you actually triggered another prong, the transformative nature, that otherwise would not have come into play.

As for the rest, I play tight in the early rounds for three reasons: let the unskilled and wild betters get knocked out so they don't take me with them; get in a comfortable groove; conserve chips for when the blinds start forcing more action.

It doesn't even have anything to do with poker strategy really, it's more of a "I'll play in the action when I'm damn good and ready", and for no other reason.

Posted at 1:43AM on Jun 13th 2006 by Paul William Tenny

3. Have you read the Fox and the Farmer? --
http://www.playwinningpoker.com/articles/03/06.html
Although it describes limit hold'em, this describes some very important principles and is quite valid in no limit today. On caveat is that farmers do have a greater advantage in No-Limit because they might be able to double up when they do get a good hand vs. limit when doubling up is harder unless you're short-stacked.
Note: I play very tightly online through the first 4-6 levels. Much more tightly than I do live. And that's because I feel that chips have a _lot_ more power live and having chips gives you a lot more options. And also because online I will usually see a lot more hands per level so the chances of getting a premium hand before the blinds devastate me is a lot higher.
On the other hand, image is more important live, too. If you build up a tight image you may be able to steal or re-steal enough to keep even until you find a premium situation to double up. Trying to take down pots is a very different thing from trying to see flops, though, which I think Harrington would agree with as well.
I'm looking forward to getting my copy of the workbook!

Posted at 11:26AM on Jun 13th 2006 by Mat

4. I've read Harrington's first two books, and I do tend to agree with his tight in the beginning/progressively more aggressive strategy. However, the advantage that I find is that, while you're folding the majority of your hands, your time and ability at reading the table is increased. You don't have your own hand to worry about, so you can worry about everyone else.

I think we've all played way too many SnGs where there are at least two people pushing on the first hand or two. I'll try to let the dust settle before I get into the game. However, I'll limp with AT or two face cards after that. To go with what joshman said, the fact that you ARE showing that you will make some loose calls and/or small raises only helps create the wrong image in your opponents' minds for when you get dealt a monster.

Of course, that doesn't help when you're playing against the fishie who calls your QQ fueled 3x BB raise with K5o, flops low pair with nothing over a 10 on the board, calls another large bet, turns two pairs and rivers a boat (yes, this happened to me two days ago. Yes, I tapped on the tank. Sorry.).

Posted at 3:25PM on Jun 16th 2006 by UCLSanta

Add your comments

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.