a better learner

[johnnybeef]

im curious (as i am starting to teach a few people how to play the game) what people think here: is it easier for someone to learn the game who is over-agressive and needs to trim the fat a little bit or is it easier for someone who is more passive and needs to beef up so to say.

[Pepsquad]

Depends on their reasoning for why they play the way they play. To me, I'd rather start with someone who is much too aggressive. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that those who don't know better play aggressively because they crave the action and those who play passively do so because they have a fear of losing money playing poker. To me, it would seem easier to back off the aggressive player through solid teaching of starting requirements, properly reading the boards and analyzing opponent bet size. I would think it more difficult to teach the passive player the importance of aggression and where it should be used. But I've never taught anyone to play poker so take this with a grain of salt.

Pep.

[mosquito]

If you want to be the best, starting out over aggressive
is a clear winner.

If you want to save money and have fun, be too tight.

Aggression wins. Wins. Wins. When under control.

[mosquito]

PS- have never taught anyone poker, but have been
paid by many to teach them bridge.

Aggression does not guarantee success, but it is
the more likely path there too.