Definition of a nit?

Originally Posted by Chopper

Originally Posted by mixchange

Solid play is not playing only when you have a hand. the best players take many pots where they don't have the best hand, or opponent has missed too.

i think we are starting a debate we dont mean to because of a misunderstanding.

what i understand as a "nit" is someone afraid to gamble. that only plays the better range of what the board has to offer. yes, that means premiums because a nit will NEVER risk hitting a 9 as TP w/o it being his set.

AT THE 25 NL LEVEL, this IS "solid" play. you should not try to "steal a pot" with air down here, monetarily, is does not make as much sense as "waiting for a better opportunity."

should you mix it up a bit? YES. will a true "nit?" NO. do they miss some value? YES. do they post positive win rates? YES, i believe most do...at levels below 100 NL. can they win (long term) at higher levels? NO, unless they learn to mix it up.

dan harrington has the image of a nit, so does barry greenstein. can they win pots with air? YES. do they? NOT VERY OFTEN, as they stick to the cards that give them the best chance to be profitable...premiums (90% of the time).

when was the last time you saw harrington bluff with air like moneymaker did in '03 at the final table? yes, he pulled off a nice SEMI-BLUFF in '04, but i am asking for a bluff on absolutely nothing. i doubt any of us have seen one (by harrington). live or on tv.

mix, i think we will agree, for the most part on this: whatever level you play, you will be more profitable if you are not afraid to play less than premium cards, and arent afraid to take some chances. but we probably disagree that (at the lower levels)...nitty = solid play; therefore, positive win rate.

well if you're going to define harrington and greenstein (then presumably harman and reese) as nits, then I'm be a nit.

1. but if you think they don't bluff, you're wrong

2. also, even if these champion players bluff less than others, a nit will fold TPTK to aggression. He doesn't bother trying to make a read. He read AOK's post and will fold to any raise if he doesn't have a set. Greenstein, Harman et al have the guts to call an all-in with bottom pair where appropriate, and a nit neither has the guts nor the ability to sense the appropriate time

3. these great players have the ability to open up and play aggressively. They've all won tournaments and you don't win tournaments by being a nit especially during the final few players. Harman can play ultra aggressive and had an excellent record against Andy Beal heads up

nit = afraid to gamble. wait for a sure win or close to it.
great player = try to create situations where they can gamble favorably and gamble

01-10-2007 02:31 AM #1
salsa4ever View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message View Blog Entries Join Date Jun 2005 Posts 1,367 Location Melbourne	Originally Posted by Chopper Originally Posted by mixchange Solid play is not playing only when you have a hand. the best players take many pots where they don't have the best hand, or opponent has missed too. i think we are starting a debate we dont mean to because of a misunderstanding. what i understand as a "nit" is someone afraid to gamble. that only plays the better range of what the board has to offer. yes, that means premiums because a nit will NEVER risk hitting a 9 as TP w/o it being his set. AT THE 25 NL LEVEL, this IS "solid" play. you should not try to "steal a pot" with air down here, monetarily, is does not make as much sense as "waiting for a better opportunity." should you mix it up a bit? YES. will a true "nit?" NO. do they miss some value? YES. do they post positive win rates? YES, i believe most do...at levels below 100 NL. can they win (long term) at higher levels? NO, unless they learn to mix it up. dan harrington has the image of a nit, so does barry greenstein. can they win pots with air? YES. do they? NOT VERY OFTEN, as they stick to the cards that give them the best chance to be profitable...premiums (90% of the time). when was the last time you saw harrington bluff with air like moneymaker did in '03 at the final table? yes, he pulled off a nice SEMI-BLUFF in '04, but i am asking for a bluff on absolutely nothing. i doubt any of us have seen one (by harrington). live or on tv. mix, i think we will agree, for the most part on this: whatever level you play, you will be more profitable if you are not afraid to play less than premium cards, and arent afraid to take some chances. but we probably disagree that (at the lower levels)...nitty = solid play; therefore, positive win rate. well if you're going to define harrington and greenstein (then presumably harman and reese) as nits, then I'm be a nit. 1. but if you think they don't bluff, you're wrong 2. also, even if these champion players bluff less than others, a nit will fold TPTK to aggression. He doesn't bother trying to make a read. He read AOK's post and will fold to any raise if he doesn't have a set. Greenstein, Harman et al have the guts to call an all-in with bottom pair where appropriate, and a nit neither has the guts nor the ability to sense the appropriate time 3. these great players have the ability to open up and play aggressively. They've all won tournaments and you don't win tournaments by being a nit especially during the final few players. Harman can play ultra aggressive and had an excellent record against Andy Beal heads up nit = afraid to gamble. wait for a sure win or close to it. great player = try to create situations where they can gamble favorably and gamble
	Originally Posted by bigred Would you bone your cousins? Salsa would. Originally Posted by salsa4ever well courtie, since we're both clear, would you accept an invitation for some unprotected sex?
Reply With Quote

Definition of a nit?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Hybrid View

Posting Permissions