In HOH, Harrington talks briefly about how one should play the opposite of the table (for example, if the table is loose you should play tight or vice versa.)

Now, assuming the same strategy applies to NL cash games, would it not make more sense to play loose at a loose/passive table? If theres 5-6 players seeing every flop and no one is raising PF, should you not be calling the BB with almost any 2 cards from MP to LP?

The problem with that is with 5 or 6 limpers the odds are that the flop will hit SOMEBODY. If your just limping with the intent of taking down the pot with a bluff later, the odds are you'll be bluffing someone with a hand.

I do like to limp a lot with speculative hands in situations like this though. Stuff l'd never play if I thought it would be two or three people to the flop, or if I were facing a riase are nice hands on tables like this: Ax suited, small suited connectors, etc.

__________________
I'm CDO. It's like OCD, but everying is in order just like it should be.

I don't limp with the intent to bluff later, I limp in the hopes of hitting the flop hard (2 pair or better.) And it's a cheap fold when that doesn't happen.

The only danger I can see is getting caught with the mediocre hands (weak top pair, for example) and playing it too aggressively.

McJ.. you might want to re read your statement especially if you asking "is the right thing to do is play opposite of the table" .

Keep in mind tournament strategy is different than ring games. In a ring game you don't need to keep up with the blinds and antes.

__________________
If you're looking to borrow money or have someone give you money in order to play poker online please don't contact me... Click Here for help , and explain your situation.

I understand that there are differences between cash games and tournaments but that doesn't mean that certain strategies and tactics won't work for both.

And I'm not sure I understand what you mean by....

You bring up a interesting point, currently i moved back to micro limits with 50-60% top the flop, i have found it very profitable to limp because players do overbet there hands ALOT, again always with speculative hands and in resonable position. I dont call with Q2 or some rubbish like that suuited connectors and pocket pairs work very well though

From what I get out of this..in your fist paragraph, going off of Harrington's advice, the better strategy is to play a tighter game at a loose table.

In your second paragraph you're talking about playing loose in a loose game. Which is the exact opposite of what Harrington is suggesting, so rather than play tight at a loose table you're asking if it makes sense to play loose at a loose table.

Or am I misunderstanding the question?

__________________
If you're looking to borrow money or have someone give you money in order to play poker online please don't contact me... Click Here for help , and explain your situation.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. In a cash game, does it not make sense to go against Harrington's (tournament) advice and play loose at a loose/passive table.

it depends on your likelyhood that you will get paid off from flopping somthing, If players over value there hands then yes limping is a good idea but tight postflop players will give you a disadvantage in limping.

Help me out here.... here you're asking if the correct strategy to play tighter in a loose game and looser in a tight game, in other words do what Harrington is suggesting...correct?

Here you're asking...if the correct strategy is to do the opposite?

__________________
If you're looking to borrow money or have someone give you money in order to play poker online please don't contact me... Click Here for help , and explain your situation.