Posted Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:12 pm GMT by lwestatbus
It may be that this post deserves to be in the Advanced Theory section but it seems a bit pretentious to post there so I'll put it here. It also has roots in the Poker Psychology section as well.
I'm reading through Super System II for the first time and keep encountering Brunson's thoughts on aggression. This is obviously important to him and you see the concept in other reading, in the forums, and definitely at the table. But I have yet to encounter a fundamental explanation for the value of aggression. But I was doing some reading this morning when I had a flash of insight that I wanted to validate or invalidate in the forum. (I keep the book on the toilet tank so the flash of insight may actually have been an illusion triggered by something other than the book--especially at my age.)
It seems that aggression is not so much betting on the value of your hand but betting that your opponent does not have the few cards that make his hand rock solid based on the cards on the board. Your aggression forces him to make a decision (another common concept in the reading and one that I am actually very familiar with from my military experience). Is it then that the value of aggression is those pots you will pick up when you don't have the best hand but when you convince your opponent that they don't have it?
And, to be complete, is the cost of aggression:
1. Those times when you are aggressive and you opponent DOES have those few solid cards? plus...
2. Those times when your opponent calls you on the aggression without the best cards but with cards better than yours?
If I am on the right track here then there's a follow on question for those of you who are successful with your aggression in the long run: How do the pluses and minuses of aggression balance out? And are there observable determinants of players of tables that tilt this balance and affect your style of play?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:04 pm GMT by Cricket_Fire
In the words of Phil Gordon "When you call, you have to have the best hand. When you bet/raise, you have two ways of winning - you have the best hand, or your opponent folds"
Posted Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:08 pm GMT by aaronw
The one thing I like about being aggressive is that no one ever believes that you have a hand when you bet. So you usually get paid off when you have a hand, which is good.
Posted Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:16 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| lwestatbus wrote: | | Is it then that the value of aggression is those pots you will pick up when you don't have the best hand but when you convince your opponent that they don't have it? |
It comes from this and a derivative of this, the derivative is more important. The derivative is value betting.
I started a thread about a similar idea a week ago. The idea is that without the potential of bluffing value betting makes no sense.
A good analogy to your question is "what good is a strong running game to a football team?" The answer common sense part of the answer is that will help them pick up yards with the run. The not so obvious part is that it will also make passing the ball easier. (This is because the other team will defend more against the run and consequently less against the pass if your team runs the ball well.)
Now replace running the ball with bluffing and passing the ball with value betting.
In theory, missing bluffing opportunities will force you to miss value betting opportunities. In reality, your opponents don't play optimally so this isn't exactly the case. But the idea is still the same: in order for a value bet to work your opponent must think there must be some potential that you're bluffing; and in order for a bluff to work your opponent must think there must be some potential that you're value betting.
Posted Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:19 pm GMT by supafrey
There's no real "downside" to aggression if played properly.
It's really just about adjusting your range quick enough to compensate for your opponent's response to your loose and aggro image. Basically it's a cat and mouse game where you're trying to be just slightly less aggressive than your opponent thinks you are and you punish him with your real hands. When the ebb and flow of the game gets looser, you compensate, when it tightens up you change your game to suit the new flow, etc.
The only real "negative" to playing lagggggy is if you're not able to pick up on your opponents reactions to your image fast enough. They say it's "harder" to play than basic nittery because you must be equally as focused as the opp you're trying to beat. You've got to understand what they're thinking AND figure out how to capitalize, etc..
Posted Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:47 pm GMT by Jauron
In a nutshell, aggresion gives us two ways to win a pot, passive only gives us one.
I agree with supafrey as well, understanding your own image and those of your oppenents helps tremendously when playing this way. You pick on players who are more apt to give up on pots with no real hand and punish those who are too willing to defend pots when you do.
|
|
