Hello Mr. Rock. My play style personally is really nothing like yours, but it sounds like trying to become tight aggressive would really be a massive change to your game, and I'm not sure it would wind up improving your profits in the ring games you play in either, as it sounds like you're doing very well there.

In MTTs though, it sounds like you will keep making the money very often with your style but very rarely ever win or even make the final table. In 100 MTTs, one win and just 15 other places for a tight aggressive player may end up pay out more than 75 places (if that's truly the number you're getting over a long term that is still very impressive) for a tight passive player, especially since just making the money often just pays out 1 or 2 times the buyin. But again, if you're honestly making the money 75% of the time over a very long period of time, I don't see why you should consider making such a drastic change that doesn't seem like it would suit you best.

If you want I can answer the questions you list for me personally, but like I've said I'm not sure they would apply to you the same way.

QUESTION #1:Why risk the extra money preflop raising in any position with a mid strong hand when its usually goin to miss the flop. I can simply save the extra money for another hand.
Build the pot (for if you hit strong), steal the blinds, set up a bluff post flop that'd earn you more chips. This concept of "saving money" seems extremely foreign to me. I don't expect my bets to be wasted, or to have to fold at the flop or turn before I've even seen the flop with the hand I think is the best hand preflop. But this is a difference in styles and there's really no right and wrong, which is why changing doesn't seem necessary for where you're playing.

QUESTION #2: And why bluff bet the pot in late position when I miss, when by nature im an extremely patient player who can wait and could also use this extra money that I bluffed with to keep in my bankroll or later use on another hand that I actually hit with?
Again its this concept of you assuming that bluffed money is basically wasted money. As you said in question #1, most hands miss the flop. From what I gather, a passive player assumes that they'll miss and an aggressive player assumes that the opponent will miss. In my mind, if an opponent likely missed the flop and is tight enough to fold, and you're heads up, here's a perfect chance at taking down a free pot. Plus aggressiveness (bluffs shown usually by showdown) increase the amount of calls you'll get when you have a big hand. The action you and me get are probably on completely different levels.

QUESTION #3:Or do you guys actually believe in the longrun im goin to make more money playin tight-aggressive?
I personally feel aggressiveness is a key to success in poker, but I also realize that, especially in ring games with aggressive players, rocks can do very well. I think I'll make more money being aggressive, but I really don't know if you were, as they require different skills to be successful at them. Being tight passive is more about patience, reading possibilities, trapping, and playing the cards while successful aggressive poker is more about reading, timely bluffs (knowing which players you can push around, what you can push them off of, which hands to do it, making believable bets, etc.), creating an image of being more reckless than you are (at least for me - so I can get guys like you to come out to play with me ), and playing the player.

I don't think they necessarily translate that well from one to another. Many loose aggressive players don't have the poker knowledge to play a good tight game and many tight passive players don't have the player knowledge to know when a pot can be stolen.

QUESTION#4*: Is the paragraph above a weak element to my game? Or is it actually a more wise and patient strategy to stick with.
Yes, but "weak" in poker terms basically means passive. The thing that sticks out to me is that you say you sometimes "know" that they're buying the pot but still fold because your hand isn't strong enough. Its about as passive of thinking as you can possibly get. If your read is that strong, I don't see much risk in raising them and taking the pot down. You certainly have the image to be believed. But ... again, I'm not sure it suits your game.

FINAL QUESTION #5: If I should alter questions 1-3 in ring games. Should I take questions 1-3 and apply them for Texas Hold Em multi table tournaments as well? Or do you guys feel that Texas Hold Em no limit tournaments are much more complex then Texas Hold Em no limit ring games?

Yeah, I just don't see many successful MTT players that are absolute rocks. Some are very tight players, but you need to have some aggression in your game at times to get anywhere, I think. I personally like having rocks in MTTs with me. Free blinds, easy to get out of the way of big hands as they're probably the easiest people to read (even their trapping is relatively easy to spot - rocks don't call big bets on draws and such), easy pots to steal, etc.

When the blinds are small, like they always are in ring games, I think the most profitable players to play against are the loose aggressive players that'll risk more than they should on mediocre hands and not pick up on the fact that you've set them up. Its hard to get anything out of the tight passive players in these circumstances. But when the blinds are big in MTTs, its the tight passive players that you like, as they don't steal your blinds and let you steal a lot of pots, while the aggressive players kick the shit out of you until you have to make a stand and gamble with them.

The passive guy, unless they catch an amazing run of cards deep into a MTT, are basically destined to be blinded out before getting to the big money, while an aggressive player, particularly at the right table and in the right position, can at times steal enough to maintain or build their stack, even outside of the big hands they get.

Wow, I read your whole massive post and made another about the same size. Welcome to the board.