My Articles - My Blog - Video - Poker Work - Charity - Downloads - Links - Subscribe
LAG vs TAG
When you turn on your television and settle down to watch the final table of a major poker tournament, you see top players make bets and take gambles that seem outrageous. Commentators describe the eventual winner as a ‘loose aggressive’ player and congratulate them on their excellent play.
Later, you read a discussion on the internet about the same player, where enthusiastic amateurs from across the world are arguing that they got extremely lucky, took too many chances, and risked too much on their way to victory. They argue that a ‘tight aggressive’ approach always gets the money in the long run.
Later still, you read an interview with a leading player who describes the winner as ‘far too loose’ and claims that they would ‘get destroyed in a cash game against good players’.
So who is right? Is it best to play loose or tight? Should you switch between the two depending on whether you’re playing a tournament or a cash game? Where do you draw the line between correctly taking a chance and gambling away your stack needlessly?
The LAG Evolution
It’s widely accepted that until recently, a tight aggressive (TAG) approach was favoured by the vast majority of top players. Most of the books that were written before the poker boom strongly advise against playing loosely and advocate a tight approach. In his book Play Poker Like the Pros, Phil Hellmuth suggests that beginning players play ‘supertight’, playing only the top ten hands (A-A to 7-7, plus A-K and A-Q). He argues that when you play tight, ‘your opponents will begin to fear your bets and raises because they’ll see that you’re always playing something powerful’.
Tom McEvoy, WSOP bracelet winner and author of many poker books, writes in No Limit Texas Hold’em, ‘You don’t want to play a whole lot of hands, but when you do play a hand you want to be aggressive, unless you’re trying to trap an opponent’.*
In fact, when you look at the list of players who won the Main Event before 2001, virtually all are regarded as tight players by today’s standards: Johnny Moss, Bobby Baldwin, Johnny Chan, Brad Daugherty, Dan Harrington, Chris Ferguson...
When internet poker arrived, it made the game accessible to millions of new players. Those who decided to learn the game and take advantage of the many new and inexperienced players generally played tight, since this was an effective way of taking advantage of their opponents’ main weakness: playing too many hands (some, however took the concepts they had learned in books too far, and became weak tight players).
When they moved up in stakes, some of the successful internet players found that they were not doing as well by playing tight anymore. This was because their opponents tended to be more experienced, and they were also playing tight. Just as you can’t put out a fire with fire, you can’t beat a tight opponent for much money by playing tight.
So, if the tight strategy was designed to take advantage of players who played too many hands, surely there must be a strategy ideally suited to taking advantage of players who didn’t play enough hands? That’s where the loose aggressive, or LAG approach comes in.
The key problem with playing tight is that it makes you predictable. This isn’t a problem when your opponents are weak and loose, because they probably aren’t paying attention, and even if they are, they are still giving up a much bigger edge to you by playing too many hands. However, this is a real problem when you’re up against strong opposition.
The loose aggressive approach makes you unpredictable, and is ideally suited to games in which your opponents are too tight. Internet pioneers who adopted this approach quickly found themselves winning again, particularly in tournaments where playing loosely allowed them to gather chips early on and steal blinds effectively in later stages.
It’s not clear when loose-aggressive play developed in live poker. Certainly, when poker was first televised, we saw players like Dave ‘Devilfish’ Ulliot in the UK, and Gus Hansen in the US, taking advantage of the approach. At early World Poker Tour final tables, there is some astoundingly tight play. It’s quite something to watch players fold hands as strong as pocket tens to a single raise before the flop from an aggressive player. People like Antonio Esfandiari, Gun Hansen, and Daniel Negreanu were able to take advantage of this well and develop their careers on the back of a few big wins.
However, while LAG play may not have been invented by online players, they certainly did a lot to popularise it. Today, online qualifiers represent a large proportion of the entrants in any big tournament, and you can bet your bankroll that most of them will be playing loose. Greg Raymer, who qualified for the 2004 WSOP on PokerStars.com, steamrolled through the main event with LAG play. Other top internet players, like Brian Townsend, Prahlad Friedman, Dustin Dirksen, and Cliff Josephy, all have a characteristically LAG style.
Variance
An important consideration when deciding what approach you are going to use is variance. If you choose to play only strong hands, you reduce your variance because in general, your edge over your opponents’ hands will be larger. However, reducing your variance comes with a cost, in that you may not be making as much profit as possible from the game because you’ll be passing up some small, high risk investments.
By playing more hands in an attempt to take advantage of your opponents, you’re opening yourself up to higher variance. Although you’ll be exploiting every edge, because your hands will tend to be weaker on average, you’ll come out a loser more often. Adopting a high variance strategy means that you can suffer long streaks of wins, but also painfully long streaks of losses.
Consequently, if you intend to adopt a LAG approach to the game, you’ll need a bigger bankroll than you would if you played tight, so that you can absorb the inevitable losses without going broke. A good way to experiment is to drop down in stakes, and see how loose play works for you. If you play $20 tournaments, try experimenting with loose play in $10 games. If you’re a $2/$4 No Limit player, try opening up your game at the $1/$2 level.
If you’re already a LAG player by nature, you may find that there are times when tight play might be necessary. Perhaps you’ve found yourself sat at a table with a bunch of drunk, loose idiots, but you only have one buy-in with you. By playing tight, you reduce your variance and lower the chances that you will go broke early and be unable to carry on playing. In fact, any time your bankroll is low and you cannot easily replace it, you should consider playing more tightly or dropping down in stakes, both of which reduce your variance.
Characteristics of a Tight Aggressive Player
A tight aggressive player is fairly easy to recognise. Before the flop, they will tend to play only strong hands, particularly if they are in early position. You might see some loosening up in later positions, but with ‘conventional’ type hands, like small pocket pairs and suited connectors (without gaps). About the only time you’ll see a tight aggressive player show down a trash hand is if they were in the blinds, or if they’re making a play specifically designed to benefit their table image.
A TAG will usually open for a raise if they are first into a pot, particularly in tournament play where stealing the blinds is more important. You’ll also see them reraise preflop more often than a typical player, in an effort to protect their hand (which will almost always be very strong). If a tight aggressive player flat calls before the flop, then they are either trying to hit big with a speculative hand (such as the aforementioned small pocket pairs and suited connectors), or they’re setting a trap.
Once the flop is dealt, a TAG will tend to follow up on their preflop aggression by making frequent continuation bets, particularly in heads up pots. One great strength of the TAG style of play is that it helps to make such bets work – because the TAG player tends to have a strong hand when they enter the pot, they often get more respect than they deserve when they make a bet.
Don’t expect a tight aggressive player to give up and check when they make a genuine hand either. They’re aggressive, remember? Expect to see plenty of thin value bets, which help their image, and allow them to be paid off on their strong hands.
In summary, a TAG:
- Folds a lot preflop, particularly in early position
- Usually opens for a raise
- Often makes continuation bets
- Not afraid to value bet
Interview with Julian Thew
Do you agree with the assessment that you are a TAG?
Yes, I think TAG is where I now find myself. I didn't plan it like that or anything, it was just a natural progression. I guess you could say that it crept up on me, there was a moment when I realised ‘Hey, I'm playing quite tight these days, and I'm still getting good action’.
I used to be a much more open player, a classic LAG, and that style worked well for me because at that time, in the UK, we were the minority. Nowadays though, the LAG tends to be the style of choice and the majority of young bucks can fire blanks on every street with ease.
I used to travel a lot with fellow pro Steve Vladar; we were chalk and cheese playing-style wise, but I'll never forget him saying to me, ‘don't worry, you'll calm down eventually, everyone tightens up as they get older’. Who knows, maybe he was onto something there.
Do you change your style between tournaments and cash games, or between different stages of a tournament?
I'm fairly new to the cash games, and unless I've had a drink or two I would say that I play them both pretty much the same way.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the TAG style of play?
Personally I feel that the LAG style is a hard and draining game to play; you constantly have to make marginal decisions and your stack gets a lot more exposure than that of a TAG player. If you avoid shooting yourself in the foot though, the rewards on a good day, are that you can amass a wall of chips & really run over a table.
Of course, there are varying degrees of any style, and my current label as a TAG player allows me to play a more measured game with far less swings. The downside to this more patient approach is that you can get left behind by the pack, but experience has taught me not to worry when three guys have 60k, the table average is 30k and I'm plodding along at the back with 20k.
Did you ever play differently? Tighter or looser than you do now?
I used to play a very open game, much of which was probably modelled on the loosest player around in those days, Ms. Lucy Rokach. She was so far ahead of everybody else in the aggression stakes, I mean her record five or six years ago was phenomenal, and if she got chips she was unstoppable.
As in any competitive pursuit though, it's important to keep tweaking your game and trying new things and for me there came a point where I realised that I was blowing too many big stacks. Something had to change and whilst I'm still pretty lousy at making an astute laydown, I find I’m much more able to just grind it out when necessary.
What is the best way to beat a LAG player?
Make sure they're on your right, and re-raise them every third time they raise. Oh yeah, and keep your fingers crossed!
Characteristics of a Loose Aggressive Player
A loose aggressive player is even easier to spot than a TAG. Before the flop, the LAG player will be involved in a lot of pots, and generally plays a much wider range of hands than other players. This has the benefit of making them unpredictable, but also puts them to a lot of tough decisions that players who adopt a more straightforward strategy don’t have to face.
A loose aggressive player almost always opens with a raise – to both build the pot, and give them a chance to steal the blinds. Some LAG players take this too far, particularly in No Limit cash games, where winning the blinds isn’t particularly important. However, the same attitude means that they can quickly build up a big stack in tournaments, and become a powerful force in the bubble stages of any event.
It can seem like position is unimportant to the LAG player – and indeed, you will see them show down some extremely bizarre hands from early position. However, more than any other sort of player, you can expect them to use their position effectively when they do have it – putting other players to the test with big reraises and stealing unwanted pots at every opportunity.
So, a LAG player plays lots of hands from all sorts of positions. This in itself is quite a disadvantage, so in order for them to be successful, LAG players compensate with strong post flop play. LAG players have been put to difficult decisions for their entire playing career, so they are experienced in dealing with such situations. A typical LAG will be a strong post flop player, with a wide range of tricks in their arsenal. Expect them to frequently call your continuation bets with nothing, hoping to bluff the turn. Don’t be surprised to see them raise if they think you are weak, or call you all the way to the river when you’re trying to run a bluff. A LAG will take lots of little stabs at pots, trusting in their reading skills to help them pick profitable situations.
In summary, a loose aggressive player:
- Plays a wider range of hands
- Usually opens with a raise to steal the blinds
- Will exploit their position well, but is capable of playing ‘funky’ hands from any position
- Generally plays well postflop, and bluffs often
Interview with John Tabatabai
Would you agree with the assessment that you’re a loose aggressive player?
I haven’t heard any other schools of thought on my play, so I guess that’s right! The majority of the time I am aggressive but it depends on the table – it’s not often, but I do play tight sometimes. I don’t go into every table with stupid brute force. It all depends on so many different factors.
Do you change your style depending on the stage of the tournament?
I change my style predominantly on my chip stack versus the other players’ chip stacks, and also on their aggressiveness and ‘smartness factor’. There’s no point four-betting someone preflop [with no hand] if they can’t fold pocket tens or if they think I’m bluffing every hand.
What about cash games? Do you approach them differently to tournaments?
Oh yes, there is more brute force there for sure [laughs]. I take more risks and apply more pressure against players that I know may not fold. If I lose it doesn’t matter that much, as I can just reload and felt the player later. In tournaments you can’t reload, so you have so show a bit more restraint.
What do you think the strengths and weaknesses of your style of play are?
The strengths are that you get paid off more often, as people must call you with weaker / more marginal hands otherwise you keep winning pots and get away with murder. A big weakness is that there’s more variance – so more headaches! You get called by looser hands, which means more bad beats, and it can be harder to get far in tournaments. The more you get called, the more luck you need to not lose, regardless of your hand versus the caller’s hand. Its all percentages.
Did you play differently in the past?
I started off by winning $5 in a freeroll, then playing $0.25/$0.50 Limit Hold’em. I played that how it should be played I guess – it’s not so easy to be LAG in ten-handed limit games. But my style developed – I think I always made the optimal plays which often it to bet or raise when you have nothing, based on your feeling of your opponent’s apparent weakness.
What’s the best way to beat a TAG player?
They are tougher... I’m not sure really. Although my plays seem generally aggressive, they are always based on the individual situation, which is always different. It depends on how I’m running, how confident I am and how I’m feeling, as well as twenty other factors from the table and the players.
What would you say to people who think you are just lucky?
I have been lucky, so I don’t get involved. However, there are two things I would love nothing more for people to think – either I’m brain dead or lucky!
Conclusion
Poker writers, myself included, are often reluctant to describe good modern players as ‘tight’. The word has become almost negative, and is used in a derogatory sense to refer to ‘textbook’ players and old men with no imagination.
On the other hand, the word ‘loose’ has become increasingly associated with good players – particularly those who win big tournaments. But as little as ten years ago, hearing a good player described as ‘loose’ was extremely rare.
However, the truth is that both styles can be appropriate, depending on the situation. Earlier, we saw how players who play too many hands are best exploited by a tight, straightforward strategy. But we also saw that the same strategy doesn’t fare as well when your opponents play the same way that you do.
The best players are constantly mixing up their games, flowing like water from one style to the next. In many ways, it’s incorrect to label a top player as ‘loose aggressive’ or ‘tight aggressive’, because they are neither. We only do it because it helps to put our opponents into categories, so that we can make better decisions against them in future.
The loose aggressive approach to poker is certainly fun. You get to play a lot of pots, make big bluffs, and you’ll win pretty much every chip you’re entitled to, plus a lot more. It’s a dangerous style of play, with big risks, but potentially huge rewards.
Tight aggressive play may not seem glamorous, but in many conditions it’s clearly the most profitable approach. When your opponents are loose and passive, when the blinds are very small relative to the stacks, or when you just can’t afford to risk much, you’ll want to choose this style. You might not look as cool as the TAG player across the table – but what is your goal, to look cool or to make money?
Notice that the one thing that both styles agree on is aggression. Aggression is the key to winning poker – it’s what allows you to make the most money when you have the best hand, how you win all the small pots that nobody seems to want, and what enables you to rake in the chips with no hand at all. It’s what separates poker from a game like gin rummy or bridge. There are times for passive play also, such as when one of your opponents bluffs much too often, but they are comparatively rare.
Both styles will continue to evolve, and you’ll continue to see lucky ‘LAG’ amateurs and prudent ‘TAG’ professionals win big tournaments. But in reality, poker’s top players will be moving to a more fluid style, encompassing the best bits of each. And then the fun will really begin.
*In fairness, both Phil and Tom admit that an approach which is too tight cannot win either.
