Loose Vs. Tight Players who's better?

[PointerJake]

I recently read an article in poker Magazine, dicussing Loose vs. Tight players and which style is best. Here is a piece of the article:

"A definition of loose or tight play in Texas Holdem is like two men trying to tell what they think a beautiful lady looks like. Namely, the explanation is in the eye of the beholder. A general rule would be: A tight player starts the hand with a high pair or with an AK. A loose player would start the hand with low cards or unsuited K3. The tight player raises when he feels he has the best of it. The loose player may raise on the come more than he should; he may call too much on inside straights or full house draws. He plays too many hands that depend on luck to win and not according to what he currently holds.
Both types of players can hurt you, but the tight player is probably easier to play against. It is usually the tight player you can identify from the Flop and the betting. The loose player is not easy to read as he may hold anything at any time. It is his unpredictable play that makes him more dangerous in many hands. He may not fold when bet against, like the tight player would. The loose player may play for the miracle draw -- and when he gets it, he puts a bad beat on you. The tight player will only raise when he thinks he has a sure thing. This gives you an advantage as you can get out of the hand or at least not re-raise.

Loose players have a small edge in that when they raise, you don't know if they have a hand or are just trying to win by betting. Since their starting hand can be any two cards, an odd flop may fit their hand very well. This makes playing a big pair against them a more risky proposition than it would be with any tight player. Loose players are great pot builders, since they are likely to call bets more freely."


So my question is, Which style is best or is it a combination of the to that will make the most money?

[liladypokerpro]

In my opinion, I think combining the two styles can be a formidable weapon. Definitely, it is a must to learn and be comfortable with both styles, that way you can adjust according to the table you're playing. I am probably moreso tight than loose, but just as it appears that players are getting comfortable with my playing style, feeling they know what I have if I bet, I will change it up on them a bit...play a few different types of hands...then when a bomb hits on the flop, they are less inclined to think I got a piece of it because they've pegged me as a strictly tight player. So I definitely think it's a combination of the two styles which can be more profitable.

The real question is: do people know when to switch it up and for how long? That can be the trickiest part to combo play.

[PointerJake]

I would agree with that. Timing is everything

[st_ever]

Depends on the game and also game selection when talking about cash games.

But in general i would defintely say a combination of both.

If i had to be one or the other definitely tight is the way to go when playing small stakes!

[alienrobot2]

I Havent Won 1st Placeyet But Ive Won Money Playing Tight

[spudda]

Originally Posted by alienrobot2 I Havent Won 1st Placeyet But Ive Won Money Playing Tight

Playing tight is quite suitable to a table where a lot of money goes in to the pot each hand. If your opponents generally over play their hands while you wait for Aces or Kings then when you hit that monster you will generally find your opponents more likely to pay off.

In tighter tables the opposite rings true. You might try and wait around for aces or kings however when you get them you might find no one willing to play with you. But if you loosen up the game in that spot you will be able to take flops with mediocre hand, small pairs, connectors (even bluffs) without even seeing a flop.

Tournaments are a different kettle of fish as generally there is a larger requirement to change it up during the play