Mathematical Justification for Loose-Aggressive Play

[TrueBritt]

Can you point me to a mathematical explanation or justification of loose-aggressive play, ala Gus Hansen or Daniel Negreanu?

Thanks.

[Tevyee]

Daniel Negreanu isn't exactly loose aggressive... /images/graemlins/wink.gif
Gus talks about his style in his article @ CardPlayer (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14525&m_id=65555&PHPSESSID=67 5a52a6e4bdc646be9291ac84932ba7)

[srw5n]

It's more justification for calling in situations where you are behind. The reason gus is scary is because if you reraise him with AK and tell him you have AK to his 10-9, if the money is right (ie he's better than 3-2) he'll make the call despite being behind. Negreanu does the same thing if he's playing for a smaller portion of his stack (10% or so).

Gus in his article was saying, from my point of view, that he's not just playing premium hands, because if you look at the numbers AK is only a 3-2 favorite over a hand like 87s. So if you consider the implied odds with a hand like 87s against an AK, he'll play it, raise with it after the flop, etc - all based on the concept that you're only going to hit a pair x% of the time.

[Arsene Lupin III]

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel Negreanu isn't exactly loose aggressive... /images/graemlins/wink.gif
Gus talks about his style in his article @ CardPlayer (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14525&m_id=65555&PHPSESSID=67 5a52a6e4bdc646be9291ac84932ba7)

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh.. where?

nm. A case of mistaken references.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you point me to a mathematical explanation or justification of loose-aggressive play, ala Gus Hansen or Daniel Negreanu?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it mainly relays on your opponents playing with scared money. Which is normally the case in tournaments.

[TPL]

Please, don't.

I enjoyed all the loose aggressive play last night after the telecast. Idiots everywhere trying to be like Gus, without an ounce of the talent.

Just bet hard, they'll fold!

Hee hee....

I 3-tabled at 3 different sites last night, NL ring games, and doubled+ my buy-ins on all 3. Just had to be patient and pick 'em off.

Personally, I'd love to see Gus-TV: All-Gus, All-Day!

TPL

PS: I mean no disrespect to Gus - he's a great player. But I did mean disrespect to the pretenders that keep coming out after they see his style of play. If you ain't Gus, you might want to tread a little easier. Of course, I play for such puny amounts, it probably means nothing to most people.

[felson]

Harrington talks about this in his book. Basically, LAGgy play can be justified if you can outplay your opponents on the later streets.

[PuckNPoker]

It is long and complicated, and I certainly don't have it figured out. But let me get you started down the right path...

http://img156.exs.cx/img156/379/shaniatwain273ds.jpg

[patrick dicaprio]

it has little to do with math. the issue is that he is going to outplay you on the flop and if he can do that the cards dont matter.

Pat

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
it has little to do with math. the issue is that he is going to outplay you on the flop and if he can do that the cards dont matter.

Pat

[/ QUOTE ]

it has everything to do with math.

[Michael C.]

[ QUOTE ]
it has little to do with math. the issue is that he is going to outplay you on the flop and if he can do that the cards dont matter.

Pat

[/ QUOTE ]

That's completely wrong. In fact one reason Gus will call when he knows is behind is because he can figure out the mathamatically based odds and the EV of his hand better than his opponents. Thus a lot of the time they are making mathamatical mistakes, and that's what he makes his money off of (ala Sklansky's fundamental theory of poker). The fact that he can bluff and read hands is of course part of it, but figure out after the fact when he hits his "lucky" hands, and in almost every case the math justified it. I thought the hand in an earlier PSI where Howard Lederer knocked Gus off was very enlightining. Gus openly mused "I could be drawing dead, but I could be good now, although it's unlikely, or I could need another club." You could just see him going over all the possible holdings he thought Howard could have, figuring the percentages, and then figuring if the odds justified the call. Howard understood too and before Gus turned it over he said "no, you're not good now, but your flush is." After the hand in the interview Gus said that he thought his play was correct based on the possible range of hands Howard would play there. And that told me a LOT about how Gus thinks/plays, and why he is so good.

[USS Gut Shot]

now that's a nice post!

did she make Skalansky's top ten?