Playing Weak Tights/Supersytem Approach

$5NL is FULL of weak-tight hand-chart grinders. It's really difficult to build a pot with these guys. What are some strategies to implement against these them? I find playing for a bunch of small pots can be tough if theres a fish or two in between the mix, so you need some strange combination of a real hands to show the fish while still trying to bully the weak tight guys with basically anything since you won't see showdowns much. They usually cold call with AA/KK too so it's tough to know exactly where your at with top/top type hands or even QQ.

Would anyone suggest a Supersystem approach or have any experience using it over a significant sample? Just try and break them when you have some type of draw after freerolling on all the blinds you steal from them sounds like theres alot of -EV shit involved, but I imagine it becomes pretty easy to get someone to pay off your hands. Plus sucking out as a 60/40 dog can tilt them into spewing even more chips. And I suppose if you bet draws hard enough into these guys they will just tense up and fold alot of the time, so there's gotta be good fold equity for overplaying OESD's and flush draws against them. I can see where Doyle's strategy could work, but I'm wondering if it's really worth breaking out against the right players or is it really best just to nit it up and accept a low win rate considering the variance of playing super LAG would be quite high and I imagine it would take alot of experience (losses) in order to fine tune it. By just playing tighter we won't really profit much from the weak-tight players but we'll take from the fish. And with the whole 'freerolling with draws and stuff' I imagine the variance would be pretty high.

Any thoughts?

The super/system approach is more of a philosophy than an actual strategy. It's good for home games where the game ends when the fish are broke. Since that's not really the topic I wont elaborate.

I think if you have opponents that play so passively that they never bet even those types of hands, just v-bet if you beat AA. It's unlikely this type of opponent will be folding overpairs or tptk much. It is likely that they'll be folding when they miss the flop, so just use an aggressive preflop strategy and cbet good cbetting boards. Second barreling is a bad idea, better to just take a free card and run away screaming if they bet the river.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dev

The super/system approach is more of a philosophy than an actual strategy. It's good for home games where the game ends when the fish are broke. Since that's not really the topic I wont elaborate.

I think if you have opponents that play so passively that they never bet even those types of hands, just v-bet if you beat AA. It's unlikely this type of opponent will be folding overpairs or tptk much. It is likely that they'll be folding when they miss the flop, so just use an aggressive preflop strategy and cbet good cbetting boards. Second barreling is a bad idea, better to just take a free card and run away screaming if they bet the river.

---

Yeah, I feel like I'm getting exploited though by checking behind on alot of turns since I face river bets alot when I do this. They can be anywhere from a weak 1/3 the pot to a shove, probably just a bit of variance though since I'm not catching much lately I've been looking for ways beyond nutcamping to take down pots. I think I might be leveling myself about the river bets etc...I think I just need a reminder sometimes that usually the [weak tight] opposition isn't paying as much attention to what I'm doing as what cards from the charts they hold and when they bet it is usually a pretty good indicator of strength.

lol, getting "exploited" at NL5
do you really think they say "hmm my hud says he double barrels only 10% of the time, therefore ipso facto I must conclude that when he checks the turn he generally has a weak hand he doesn't want to show down, I bet"
or do you think they flopped top pair and check/call two streets and fire river when turn gets checked through?

which one is more likely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

lol, getting "exploited" at NL5
do you really think they say "hmm my hud says he double barrels only 10% of the time, therefore ipso facto I must conclude that when he checks the turn he generally has a weak hand he doesn't want to show down, I bet"
or do you think they flopped top pair and check/call two streets and fire river when turn gets checked through?

which one is more likely

---

Do you post just because you can?

No he posts to make a point lol. He's just saying that the chances of there being a good enough player(s) to exploit you on a regular basis at 5nl is laughable.

And for an answer to your original topic/question. I'm at the same level (well one step down (2nl) but it plays the same so no worries) and I like to play my draws fast. And basically just value town them when you think they are on the draw and you have a decent holding.

As to saying that "they always flat AA/KK PF is just ridiculous dude. I mean seriously, sure SOME of them (about 1%) will flat PF but a lot will raise it up (minraise mostly lmao) or try to ship it PF. I agree that there are some fish who like to get "tricky" and flat PF, but don't even worry about these guys. If they are doing that they aren't getting maximum value 99% of the time.

I tried some hours of experimenting at micro stakes again (10 hours).

Playing 20 dollar nl. 4 tables on VC poker.

At first I was shocked. People per flop was ridiculously low and people seemed to play a serious game.

How easy was it not to play against people who had almost the same strategy as I had when I first started playing. Hand reading was very easy.

Because there were more TAPS and TAGS, I could profitably LAG it up. If there were more than two lagtards or stations I would tighten up.

Brunson style works well in some of these games nowadays. I believe FE is higher with a straight draw than a flush draw- especially if you got a gapper (QTs, J9s)- because your draw is not so obvious and you can represent a set, two pair, overpair or TPTK more successfully.

Key to beat these weak-tights is to read their game and pounce when they tell you they are weak.

Start Bankroll for experiment: 200 USD.
End of experiment: 315 USD.

This was an experiment so do not give me a lecture on BRM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

I tried some hours of experimenting at micro stakes again (10 hours).

Playing 20 dollar nl. 4 tables on VC poker.

At first I was shocked. People per flop was ridiculously low and people seemed to play a serious game.

How easy was it not to play against people who had almost the same strategy as I had when I first started playing. Hand reading was very easy.

Because there were more TAPS and TAGS, I could profitably LAG it up. If there were more than two lagtards or stations I would tighten up.

Brunson style works well in some of these games nowadays. I believe FE is higher with a straight draw than a flush draw- especially if you got a gapper (QTs, J9s)- because your draw is not so obvious and you can represent a set, two pair, overpair or TPTK more successfully.

Key to beat these weak-tights is to read their game and pounce when they tell you they are weak.

Start Bankroll for experiment: 200 USD.
End of experiment: 315 USD.

This was an experiment so do not give me a lecture on BRM.

---

That stood out for me out of all of this, imo best way to beat these weak-tights is to take notice of timing tells and how they play streets, you know how they are going to play there range if they are just reading a chart so exploit it.

Just because the stakes are low doesn't mean players aren't trying - in fact alot of member's here at FTR play $5NL and I'm sure most of their games are fairly sound and they are looking to outplay their opponents. By the way the key word I mentioned is 'feel'. Based on how I'm running lately I'm running into alot of hands, so I get bet into alot, thus it just feels like everyones bluffing me - but they aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dranger7070

No he posts to make a point lol. He's just saying that the chances of there being a good enough player(s) to exploit you on a regular basis at 5nl is laughable.

And for an answer to your original topic/question. I'm at the same level (well one step down (2nl) but it plays the same so no worries) and I like to play my draws fast. And basically just value town them when you think they are on the draw and you have a decent holding.

As to saying that "they always flat AA/KK PF is just ridiculous dude. I mean seriously, sure SOME of them (about 1%) will flat PF but a lot will raise it up (minraise mostly lmao) or try to ship it PF. I agree that there are some fish who like to get "tricky" and flat PF, but don't even worry about these guys. If they are doing that they aren't getting maximum value 99% of the time.

---

I'm talking about cold calling preflop raises, not open limping. Most weak tight players (that I have seen so far) don't 3-bet preflop period. But they have a tight calling range, so in a way it kind of sucks to be oop against them because it's harder to know where you're at, whereas being up against a station you can just save betting for when you flop well.

At full ring micro a 3 bet is often extremely strong. This makes 3 betting a strong play at these stakes. A weak/tight would probably not call with AK or better- so post flop should be easy- even though we would have to fold more often than not.

When we are bet into we can fold. If we flat call his preflop raise his range includes more air (ATs+) and we can win more pots post flop.

Hope your luck will turn around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

At full ring micro a 3 bet is often extremely strong. This makes 3 betting a strong play at these stakes. A weak/tight would probably not call with AK or better- so post flop should be easy- even though we would have to fold more often than not.

When we are bet into we can fold. If we flat call his preflop raise his range includes more air (ATs+) and we can win more pots post flop.

Hope your luck will turn around.

---

Thanks sir. I tend to out-think myself too much and that's probably a huge problem with my game aside from other things that I need to fix up. I'm sure I can shallow out these 'downswings' by not calling down lighter than usual because I don't want to be bluffed off my hand etc. Does anyone else ever get that way when they are running bad? Feeling like you're always being bluffed at when in reality - you aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

Because there were more TAPS and TAGS, I could profitably LAG it up. If there were more than two lagtards or stations I would tighten up.

---

TAPS and TAGS... was this a typo or does TAP mean something other than tight/aggressive player?

Anyway, if a player is weak/tight, all you have to do to exploit them is play more aggressively. Just get value from your hand. They don't get enough value from you when they have the best of it and you DO get value from them. Or they can choose to just fold way too much to you and you can get value from bluffing.

When you're thinking of how to beat a specific type of opponent, one thing to consider is why YOU don't play that way. Weak/tight players beat themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dev

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

Because there were more TAPS and TAGS, I could profitably LAG it up. If there were more than two lagtards or stations I would tighten up.

---

TAPS and TAGS... was this a typo or does TAP mean something other than tight/aggressive player?

Anyway, if a player is weak/tight, all you have to do to exploit them is play more aggressively. Just get value from your hand. They don't get enough value from you when they have the best of it and you DO get value from them. Or they can choose to just fold way too much to you and you can get value from bluffing.

When you're thinking of how to beat a specific type of opponent, one thing to consider is why YOU don't play that way. Weak/tight players beat themselves.

---

Cool thanks for the reply. So betting alot with a mix of bluffs and value bets seems like that would do enough to run them over and force them to only continue with the goods. I would assume that we would be bet/folding alot on turns and rivers in spots where we might elect to check/fold or check/call against a different type of player? Since if we get raised we're usually looking at a monster (unless of course we have one ourselves) and if we check it over it's likely they won't bluff at the pot either.

TAP- Tight passive, not the same as TW, but close

Calling more when you are running bas seems like bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

TAP- Tight passive, not the same as TW, but close

Calling more when you are running bas seems like bad idea.

---

Changing your play at all when you're running bad seems like a bad idea. What's right when you're running good is right when you're running bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dev

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

TAP- Tight passive, not the same as TW, but close

Calling more when you are running bas seems like bad idea.

---

Changing your play at all when you're running bad seems like a bad idea. What's right when you're running good is right when you're running bad.

---

It's not intentional. It's just a psychological thing I've realized. When somone is running bad it can affect their play without even realizing it. However I said that I realized whenever I run bad I notice that I start outhinking myself - which leads to calling down light or whatever. Obviously it's not intentional, but now that I am aware of the leak I stand a better chance at keeping it under control.

We MUST adjust our game when we are on a bad run. In general we lose FE and must play tighter or change table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

We MUST adjust our game when we are on a bad run. In general we lose FE and must play tighter or change table.

---

You're overestimating your opponents' abilities to adjust.

I am always estimating which level my opponent is thinking on and then go one deeper myself.

But I have noticed that FE is lower after I have lost big pots- on average. People are irrational and think that you are full of it- almost assuming a tilt.

Lower FE must be compensated with higher equity. If no FE is lost we need no immidiate adjustments.