Jump to content

Essence Of Aggression


Recommended Posts

I would like to see this thread grow into a giant collection of thoughts on this subject. I often get confused about what aggression really is. So I think it would great to see what you guys think on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggression is what would come out if you could get your hands on any of the people who have replied to this silly thread. Frustration also applies here. :club:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see this thread grow into a giant collection of thoughts on this subject. I often get confused about what aggression really is. So I think it would great to see what you guys think on the subject.
For me this is agression factor >2, preflop raise >15 in Pr stats.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the opposite of being passive, duh.In all seriousness, being agressive generaly means betting and raising where others would check and call.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the opposite of being passive, duh.In all seriousness, being agressive generaly means betting and raising where others would check and call.
When though? Just when you have a good hand? Or when you have position? Is aggression situational?
Link to post
Share on other sites
When though? Just when you have a good hand? Or when you have position? Is aggression situational?
Well the most agressive player in the world would bet/raise at every avalible oppurtunity, that of course would make him a terrible poker player, but it would also make him the most aggressive on the planet.If you're talking about controlled agression, then it's a lot harder to define. You often hear that the key to playing poker is being aggressive or some other saying of the same elk, i'm assuming this level/type of aggression is what you are trying to understand?Well, you're right, it is a very situational thing, as poker is a situational game based on incomplete information. The top players in the world are often described as being incredibly aggressive, but what you have to realise is that there is not a direct link between aggression and profit, these top players are viewed as being very aggressive because they know when to be aggressive, lesser players don't (well not to the same extent).The way i see it is like this, good aggressive players are taking home a bigger slice of the pie than their cards say they should, this is because they A) take pots off people who have nothing when they also have nothing and B) their constant aggression means that sometimes they get payed off more because people think they could be bluffing. A more passive player would generaly win less because he's only playing when he has the cards and when he has the cards he won't get as much money from them.I suck at explaining things like this lol.Basicaly, Aggressive players recognise when they can take chips regardless of what they're holding, while more passive players only play when their hand lets them.I reccomend reading the NL section on Super system and watching the PXF video of Annete_15's blind play(which can be found in one of the stickies on this board) , it will probably help you understand it a lot better.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Vanessa Rousseau's groundbreaking research in game theory has shed light on the nature of aggression.Though it's rumoured to be spreading in some underground games in vegas, she is the only person widely acknowledged to be able to execute an aggresive call.

Link to post
Share on other sites
putting your opponents to the test so frequently that they know you can't always have a hand but not so often that they can risk that this time you don't
This is a superb answer. Well said, sir.
Link to post
Share on other sites
putting your opponents to the test so frequently that they know you can't always have a hand but not so often that they can risk that this time you don't
But can you do this at every table you play. For example, would this kinda of aggression work when the table is mostly calling stations? When you sit down at a table do you play passively until you figure out the table or do you just let em have it?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is "selective aggression".Vs calling stations, be aggressive when you have a hand.Vs tighter players, be aggressive when you think they'll fold, in addition to when you have a hand.I don't quite understand what the confusion is. They aren't telling you to be blindly aggressive, or suicidal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

aggression is betting for information. when you first start playing you probably mostly bet to give information-- "i have a hand i like." as you progress, your betting grows to include probing for information-- "i have nothing, but i'm pretty sure you don't either, so let's test my hypothesis." when over-aggressive, you slide back into giving more information than you are getting-- "i raise everything, so come take me on a little trip to value town."

Link to post
Share on other sites
yesAnd against all oponents.It's just up to you to figure out the optimal frequency
How much are willing to risk to put your opponents to the test? Do you have max amounts, let's say a quarter of your stack at any one raise? Also, when you say test do you mean raising their bets or re-raising their raises or both?I'm just trying to get a feel for what I should be doing since I want to go from ISAP to IWAP
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...