Aggression And Poker: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Version vom 25. August 2020, 19:51 Uhr

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 large amount of players would quickly say yes. But I , type of. I think there exists a larger 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 kinds of players, players who will be just aggressive in the interests of it (let's give them a call "Aggressive-BAD") are simple to beat i think.

I think most players would agree that passive poker could be 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 want to reach showdown assured you have the most effective hand, you happen to be missing one huge weapon in your betting arsenal: bluffing. So passives will also be limited in how they can win. Put simply: passive=bad. When you're always calling and calling and also you only raise when you have the nuts, you'll never be profitable ultimately. It's impossible. You're very simple to beat; any decent player is definitely going to value bet that you death and simply fold in your raises.

Have you ever sat in a mostly tight-passive table and watched a GOOD, aggressive player absolutely steamroll everybody? It is always one of the best events to look at. You watch these passive players consistently limp in or make chintzy raises and merely continually get re-jacked or outplayed if they are brazen enough to call pre-flop. Then they mumble to themselves once they feel compelled to muck. Then, out of the blue, a fascinating dynamic shift happens; the gang of passives, without even muttering a single word to one another, decide to "gang up" for the aggro player! They secretly hope and pray that when they cannot do it, then among their passive-bad cohorts will require a huge pot off of the good, aggressive player. Only concern is, their traps don't work, their bluffs do not work; nothing works! And this player is constantly on the play aggressively, bluffing in spots where he could arrive with monster hands, and in addition value bets in spots where he could make an appearance with air. He balances his ranges well and poses a lots of problems both pre and post-flop.

This player fits within the description of "Aggressive-GOOD." He will give you headaches at the table. He allows you to wish to quit cards forever. He's the guy you imagine is simply 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 straightforward: Aggression + purpose=Good. Very good.

But what about those players that learned aggression all alone is a useful one, along with apply the concept well in any way? These players are still in each and every pot, just like the "passive-bad" players we discussed earlier. But they bet and raise in spots which are inconsistent with virtually any strong hand. They are aggressive exclusively for the sake to be 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 can also be easy to trap, simply because they overplay hands and bet and raise in spots where it's quite obvious they can not be winning. Spend enough time with this particular player and that he or she's going to exhibit exactly the same type of betting pattern frequently as well as over again. For example, I was playing heads-up limit having an "Aggressive-BAD" the other day. After about 10 hands, I realized that this player always always always checked the flop and then bet the turn without fail. What an easy adjustment to produce to find out that most I had to do was widen my check-raise range on the turn from 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 work) for you personally? Can you think that of some ways you can start to combat the 3 playing styles? Hopefully this entry will shed a little light around the "Aggression" theory since it concerns poker and also make you think that a little more about your personal aggression level at the table.