Aggression And Poker

De CidesaWiki

I think this concept as it refers to overall play is massively understood. Is "aggression" profitable? Does it pay to get aggressive? Is aggression "good"?

A large amount of players would quickly say yes. But I , form of. I think there is a much larger picture. There is great aggression and bad aggression. Aggression simply 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 that are just aggressive for the sake of it (let's give them a call "Aggressive-BAD") are really simple to beat i believe.

I think most players would agree that passive situs poker online is the least profitable gameplay possible. If you're always soft playing the hands, then you are obviously not maximizing your overall value. And if it is usually your need to reach showdown confident you have the top hand, then you are missing one huge weapon inside your betting arsenal: bluffing. So passives may also be limited in how you can win. Put simply: passive=bad. When you're always calling and calling and you only raise when you've got the nuts, you'll never be profitable in the long run. It's impossible. You're extremely easy to beat; any decent player is definitely planning to value bet one to death and just fold for your raises.

Have you ever sat in a mostly tight-passive table and watched a GOOD, aggressive player absolutely steamroll everybody? It is always considered one of the most popular events to watch. You watch these passive players consistently limp in or make chintzy raises and simply continually get re-jacked or outplayed when they are brazen enough to call pre-flop. Then they mumble to themselves when they feel compelled to muck. Then, all of a sudden, a unique dynamic shift happens; the gang of passives, without even muttering a single word together, opt to "gang up" for the aggro player! They secretly hope and pray that if they can not do it, then certainly one of their passive-bad cohorts is going to take an enormous pot off the good, aggressive player. Only dilemma is, their traps don't work, their bluffs fail; nothing works! And this player is constantly play aggressively, bluffing in spots where he could make an appearance with monster hands, plus value bets in spots where he could arrive with air. He balances his ranges well and poses a large amount of problems both pre and post-flop.

This player fits under the description of "Aggressive-GOOD." He offers you headaches at the table. He makes you want to quit cards forever. He's the guy you believe is merely blessed, just running good. He's the guy you so desperately desire to trap, damn it! But you don't, and you also won't.

Plain and: Aggression + purpose=Good. Very good.

But how about those players that learned aggression all alone is great, but don't apply the thought well in any respect? These players remain in every single pot, similar to the "passive-bad" players we discussed earlier. But they bet and raise in spots which are inconsistent with just about any strong hand. They are aggressive just for the sake of being aggressive. Their betting lines usually don't make for good business, so savvy players adjust quickly by calling, raising, and in many cases 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 could not be winning. Spend sufficient time with this player and he or she is going to exhibit a similar form of betting pattern frequently and also over again. For example, I was playing heads-up limit by having an "Aggressive-BAD" yesterday. After about 10 hands, I pointed out that this player always always always checked the flop and after that bet the turn without fail. What an easy adjustment to make to understand that all I had to perform was widen my check-raise range for the turn using this player. Even lowest pair taught me to be confident enough to double his big bet on Fourth Street.

So what player profile do you imagine you fit under? Passive-bad, Aggressive-bad, or Aggressive-good? What works (and does not work) for you personally? Can you imagine of some ways start to combat seventy one playing styles? Hopefully this entry will shed somewhat light about the "Aggression" theory since it relates to poker as well as make you believe a little more about your own aggression level at the table.