Player Type Map:
This is a grid map to define player types. We can map a Villain onto the grid by his style of play. We can even map our self to the grid. We use a coordinate system of X,Y where an aggressive leaning optimal player would be a 5,6.
The X Axis:
The left to right (X) axis represents tightness and looseness. In the 1st column, a player may only play (see flops with) say 5% of hands (extremely tight). In the 9th column a player might play 80% of all hands (very very loose). The 5th column (middle) represents the standard 15-20% (depending on table size).
The Y Axis:
The up and down (Y) axis represents passiveness and aggressiveness. On the 1st (bottom) row a player almost never opens pre, leads a street or raises. He hates bluffing, and on the rare occasions when he does put money in, his sizing tends to be small. On the 9th row (top) a player is opening, leading, 3-betting, 4-betting at nearly every opportunity. He loves to bluff and generally bets large.
a g g r e s s i v e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9 | maniacs 9
low
8 stakes | 8
exploitative
t 7 (TaGs) | LaGs 7 l
-------
i 6 / \ 6 o
| |
g 5 - - - - - | optimal | - - - - - 5 o
| |
h 4 \ / 4 s
-------
t 3 | call 3 e
stations
2 nits | 2
1 | whales 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
p a s s i v e
Player Types:
These are the basic player types, the characteristics that define them, and where to find them on the grid.
Nits (Rocks):
On the bottom left we have the nits. It would be exceedingly rare to find a 1,1 but if we find a player who is a 3,2 he would definitely be a nit. This player is cheap. He is so afraid to lose his chips that he just wonât put them into the pot unless he has a made hand. His pre-flop range is always tight. If he raises, he almost certainly has nuts, making an easy fold for you. He is also easy to bluff. Bet half-pot with air and he will pretty much always fold middle pair. We will also frustrate the heck out of him since we never check a wet board and let him draw.
Call Stations:
On the bottom right we have the call stations. If we map a player to be a 7,2 we are up against a call station. This player is cheap too, but in a different way. Once he puts chips into the pot, he canât stand to let them go. Unable to walk away from a bad investment (even as it gets worse and worse on each round), he will call almost anything on every street until his chances absolutely die (say his flush busts on the river). We do not bluff the call station as he will probably stack off with middle pair. Instead, we value bet him relentlessly when you are strong. At 1,9 we have the whale, a very rare and special type of call station who loves to donate money to us as calls and calls with complete garbage.
LaGs:
On the upper right we have the LaGs (loose and aggressive players). At 7,8 this player can be annoying to play against because he splashes the pot often and we never know what he has. Tighten up and call him when we hit because his range is wide. At 9,9 we have the maniac - the extreme LaG. This is the guy who makes the nits say, âgrrr,â in the chat. He jams pre a lot. With him, we just wait for nuts and call. Then all of the small pots that he stole in the last 10 minutes will be ours.
TaGs (exploitative players):
Above we have discussed all of the exploitable players. Now we will move on to the type that does all of the exploiting. On the upper left we have the TaGs (tight and aggressive players). When players say that they play an exploitative style, this is how they play. A 2,8 player takes down nits with aggression, LaGs with the range advantage of his tightness, and call stations with a combo of both.
Player Types and Isolation:
To be clear, isolation means being able to play heads-up (preferably against a weak player). An overlooked reason of why isolation is important is that if we are 3-handed against different player types, our decisions become tangled. If we bet to bluff the nit, the call station will call with top-pair-crap-kicker. We are handcuffed and cannot exploit. Aim for 1 caller pre-flop to avoid this as much as possible.
Low Stakes vs High Stakes:
The higher the stakes that one plays, the better the skills of the Villains, and the more towards the middle of the grid we will need to adjust our play. Otherwise, even playing a 3,7 TaG style can be exploited by pro players. Likewise, there will be fewer and fewer nits, call stations and maniacs at higher stakes as everyone else also gravitates towards the middle of the grid, so being too TaGgy wonât pay off nearly so much anyways.
Optimal:
In the middle of the grid we have optimal play where the player attempts to make the mathematically best play possible in any given spot. The zen of this is to essentially be unexploitable. All of the worldâs best players play in that tight middle circle - at least when playing against other world class players. Now, one might argue that a player like Phil Laak (who adamantly describes himself as loose and aggressive) is not optimal. Actually, Laak probably plays 6,6 most of the time, and in world class play 6,6 is LaGgy. If one thinks that by playing 7,7 or 8,8 one is emulating Phil Laak, one is mistaken.
Optimal vs Exploitative as a Style Choice:
Be careful. Choosing to be an exploitative player rather than optimal can be a cop out. Many players reject optimal just because they donât understand it or donât want to understand it - or it just sounds like it spoils all of their gunslinger fun. However, we canât just play optimal. We must learn optimal first and itâs very mathematical and complicated. This does not mean that optimal should be rejected outright. However, the less that we understand about the game, the tighter we should play, otherwise we can get ourselves into trouble. Playing AA or KK is easy. Playing at the bottom of our range (J9s say) can often get hairy. The more skills and experience that we gain, the wider we can play.
Final Word:
Optimal is the best way to play. However, even the worldâs best players use optimal as a baseline and then step outside of it occasionally when they spot a leak in a Villainâs game that they feel that they can exploit. If you are playing against weaker players, optimal actually leaves money on the table and the Iveys and Negreanus and Hellmuths of the world know this. That is why optimal is basically a waste of time at low stakes. This does not mean that we should dismiss it as some nerdy fad. If there is one thing in the universe that is unbendable, it is math, and optimal play is the cold hard facts of poker math. We ignore it at our own peril.