If you want to move on, move on... I was simply trying to bring us back on topic and explain why I didn't agree with your advice - let alone how you were classifying this guy.
I mean, what the hell is
loose/tight? Is that like being passive/aggressive or an intelligent moron or a female man or
.
LOL... Sorry Brian, but you're all kinds of mixed up here.
Loose <> (does not equal) Aggressive.
Tight <> Passive.
You need to understand that right now. These are different concepts. When combined, you have the following 4 player types:
Loose/Aggressive (LAG - lots of flops, lots of raising... CAN be a winning style if played properly, but is usually a loser with huge variance)
Loose/Passive (Big loser - plays too many hands, calls down a lot)
Tight/Aggressive (Winning player - this is what you should strive for)
Tight/Passive (Nit - CAN be a winner, especially against bad opponents, but good opponents will tear this guy apart)
And that's it. Note that there is no
Loose/Tight on the list.
As for me enlightening you, I guess I thought I wrote enough that it was obvious where I thought you were wrong, but if you want me to spell it out for you like I would someone that has never played poker before, I suppose I can...
Exhibit A - Player In Question:
VPIP 28
PFR 12
Total Postflop Aggression - 2ish
Exhibit B - Aggression of the "average" player at these stakes, according to you:
Total Postflop Aggression > 4 (> means GREATER than, btw)
Now, I thought pretty much anyone who can count (let alone anyone who knows anything about poker) would realize that 4 > 2 (4 is greater than 2) and would be able to deduce that the player in Exhibit A is therefore LESS AGGRESSIVE then the average player in Exhibit B. So I was wondering why you classified him as a LAG (Loose Aggressive). Taking it one step farther, he's putting money into 28% of the pots, but only raising 12%, meaning he's not raising 16% (more than half the time he's putting money in the pot). 16 is greater than (>) 12, so it's not like he crazy aggressive preflop either.
So, for you to look at this guy and compare him to the average player (again, we are going with your definition, since I don't play full ring OR these stakes) and label him as aggressive... I don't get that.
I also didn't get how you would:
Wait... Why aren't you raising with hands like AQ preflop already??? You also said this guy is aggressive and we are supposed to play the opposite, but then you are advocating playing him more aggresively (raising AQ, for example) than you normally would (limping AQ, for example).
In other words, it just didn't make sense to me. I agreed with pieces of what you were saying, but not for the reasons you were saying them, and there were so many inconsistencies in what you wrote, I didn't even know where to start - hence my general comment about your post.
I really hope that's enough detail for you. If not, hopefully someone else will chime in, because as much as I've love to be your private poker tutor/math teacher... no wait... I wouldn't.
Feel enlightened yet?