Aggression and Poker
I think this concept as it relates to overall play is massively understood. Is "aggression" profitable? Does it pay to be aggressive? Is aggression "good"?
A lot of players would quickly say yes. But I , sort of. I think there is a much bigger picture. There is good aggression and bad aggression. Aggression just for the sake of aggression, while probably profitable in spurts, I don't think can be +EV in the long run. Actually these types of players, players who are just aggressive for the sake of it (let's call them "Aggressive-BAD") are easy to beat in my opinion.
I think most players would agree that passive poker is the least profitable playing style possible. If you're always soft playing your hands, then you're obviously not maximizing your overall value. And if it is always your desire to get to showdown in hopes that you have the best hand, then you are missing one huge weapon in your betting arsenal: bluffing. So passives are also limited in how they can win. Put simply: passive=bad. When you're always calling and calling and you only raise when you have the nuts, you will never be profitable in the long run. It's impossible. You're also very easy to beat; any decent player is just going to value bet you to death and simply fold to your raises.
Have you ever sat at a mostly tight-passive table and watched a GOOD, aggressive player absolutely steamroll everybody? It is always one of my favorite events to observe. You watch these passive players consistently limp in or make chintzy raises and just continually get re-jacked or outplayed if they are brazen enough to call pre-flop. Then they mumble to themselves when they feel compelled to muck. Then, all of a sudden, an interesting dynamic shift happens; the gang of passives, without even muttering a single word to each other, decide to "gang up" on the aggro player! They secretly hope and pray that if they can't do it, then one of their passive-bad cohorts will take a huge pot off the good, aggressive player. Only problem is, their traps don't work, their bluffs don't work; nothing works! And this player continues to play aggressively, bluffing in spots where he could show up with monster hands, and also value bets in spots where he could show up with air. He balances his ranges well and poses a lot of problems both pre and post-flop.
This player fits under the description of "Aggressive-GOOD." He gives you headaches at the table. He makes you want to quit cards forever. He's the guy you think is just blessed, just running good. He's the guy you so desperately want to trap, damn it! But you don't, and you won't.
Plain and simple: Aggression + purpose=Good. Very good.
But what about those players that learned aggression in and of itself is good, but don't apply the concept well at all? These players are still in every pot, just like the "passive-bad" players we discussed earlier. But they bet and raise in spots that are inconsistent with any kind of strong hand. They are aggressive just for the sake of being aggressive. Their betting lines usually don't make any sense, so savvy players adjust quickly by calling, raising, and even re-raising light. They are also easy to trap, because they overplay hands and bet and raise in spots where it's quite obvious they can never be winning. Spend enough time with this player and he or she will exhibit the same kind of betting pattern over and over and over again. For example, I was playing heads-up limit with an "Aggressive-BAD" the other day. After about 10 hands, I noticed that this player always always always checked the flop and then bet the turn without fail. What an easy adjustment to make to know that all I had to do was widen my check-raise range on the turn against this player. Even lowest pair made me confident enough to double his big bet on Fourth Street.
So what player profile do you think you fit under? Passive-bad, Aggressive-bad, or Aggressive-good? What works (and doesn't work) for you? Can you think of some ways you can begin to combat all three playing styles? Hopefully this entry will shed a little light on the "Aggression" theory as it relates to poker as well as make you think a little more about your own aggression level at the table.
I think this concept as it relates to overall play is massively understood. Is "aggression" profitable? Does it pay to be aggressive? Is aggression "good"?
A lot of players would quickly say yes. But I , sort of. I think there is a much bigger picture. There is good aggression and bad aggression. Aggression just for the sake of aggression, while probably profitable in spurts, I don't think can be +EV in the long run. Actually these types of players, players who are just aggressive for the sake of it (let's call them "Aggressive-BAD") are easy to beat in my opinion.
I think most players would agree that passive poker is the least profitable playing style possible. If you're always soft playing your hands, then you're obviously not maximizing your overall value. And if it is always your desire to get to showdown in hopes that you have the best hand, then you are missing one huge weapon in your betting arsenal: bluffing. So passives are also limited in how they can win. Put simply: passive=bad. When you're always calling and calling and you only raise when you have the nuts, you will never be profitable in the long run. It's impossible. You're also very easy to beat; any decent player is just going to value bet you to death and simply fold to your raises.
Have you ever sat at a mostly tight-passive table and watched a GOOD, aggressive player absolutely steamroll everybody? It is always one of my favorite events to observe. You watch these passive players consistently limp in or make chintzy raises and just continually get re-jacked or outplayed if they are brazen enough to call pre-flop. Then they mumble to themselves when they feel compelled to muck. Then, all of a sudden, an interesting dynamic shift happens; the gang of passives, without even muttering a single word to each other, decide to "gang up" on the aggro player! They secretly hope and pray that if they can't do it, then one of their passive-bad cohorts will take a huge pot off the good, aggressive player. Only problem is, their traps don't work, their bluffs don't work; nothing works! And this player continues to play aggressively, bluffing in spots where he could show up with monster hands, and also value bets in spots where he could show up with air. He balances his ranges well and poses a lot of problems both pre and post-flop.
This player fits under the description of "Aggressive-GOOD." He gives you headaches at the table. He makes you want to quit cards forever. He's the guy you think is just blessed, just running good. He's the guy you so desperately want to trap, damn it! But you don't, and you won't.
Plain and simple: Aggression + purpose=Good. Very good.
But what about those players that learned aggression in and of itself is good, but don't apply the concept well at all? These players are still in every pot, just like the "passive-bad" players we discussed earlier. But they bet and raise in spots that are inconsistent with any kind of strong hand. They are aggressive just for the sake of being aggressive. Their betting lines usually don't make any sense, so savvy players adjust quickly by calling, raising, and even re-raising light. They are also easy to trap, because they overplay hands and bet and raise in spots where it's quite obvious they can never be winning. Spend enough time with this player and he or she will exhibit the same kind of betting pattern over and over and over again. For example, I was playing heads-up limit with an "Aggressive-BAD" the other day. After about 10 hands, I noticed that this player always always always checked the flop and then bet the turn without fail. What an easy adjustment to make to know that all I had to do was widen my check-raise range on the turn against this player. Even lowest pair made me confident enough to double his big bet on Fourth Street.
So what player profile do you think you fit under? Passive-bad, Aggressive-bad, or Aggressive-good? What works (and doesn't work) for you? Can you think of some ways you can begin to combat all three playing styles? Hopefully this entry will shed a little light on the "Aggression" theory as it relates to poker as well as make you think a little more about your own aggression level at the table.
No comments:
Post a Comment