..25/.50 is often a loose passive game. You to raise less preflop and
play more hands that go big when lots of people are in the pot. These
are baby pairs and suited connectors.

Oddly enough, many fish "get" that preflop raises mean:
You're an idiot.
or
You've got a clue.

--Michael

homerdoh@bellsouth.net (Michael) wrote in message news:<87fed783.0308041321.45513b59@posting.google.com>...
> First off, thanks to everyone for an extremely friendly and
> (relatively) SPAM-free forum. I really enjoy reading all the posts
> and applying your experience to my game.
>
> I have been playing online at UB for about 3 months. I started with
> $25.00 playing .25/.50. For the first month I stayed about even. I
> told myself that if I went broke I would never play poker again.
> Well, twice I got down to "All In" and somehow got lucky and managed
> to battle back. I bought the Skalansky/Malmuth (sorry for SP) book
> "Texas Hold 'Em for Advanced Players." After reading that I couldn't
> believe I had managed to stay even up until this point. My only
> thinking was that I must have been playing against some really bad
> players! I was dead money and no one took it.
>
> Fast forward two months. I am now up about $130 from my initial $25
> buy in. I know this isn't much for two months and probably about 30
> hours of play. I do consistantly come out ahead, albeit not my much.
> Ok, now for the big question. How do I come up consistantly more
> profitable over the long run? I have adopted what most would call a
> "tight-aggressive" style of play. That is I don't play many hands.
> Most hands I play are PP, suited connectors, or something like AQos.
> When I do go in, I stay very aggressive. Usually I win. However,
> when I win the pots don't seem to be as big as they could be. When I
> lose a hand I tend to have a lot invested in it. So, how do I
> maximize my money when I do go in?
>
> Any advice greatly appreciated. I am sure with this being the golden
> age of poker a similar question has been answered, but I sure did not
> see it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Michael