VPIP in regards to AF

[Bizot]

I was having an interesting, all be it short, conversation with bicyclekick about this today.. turns out I was totally obvilious to the fact that a 50% VPIP with 1.5 AF is basically a 20% VPIP 3-3.5 AF?

This might be asking more than anyone cares to chew here but if anyone wants to take a stab to make a "semi easy" way to say:

20% VPIP is to 3 AF as
40% VPIP is to ? AF

Anything on this "new to me" subject would be fricken sweet /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[helpmeout]

Its best to consider VPIP AF and WTSD when considering AF.

AF on its own doesnt mean much because it is calculated by raise%+bet%/call% so a person who calls a lot will have a lot lower AF than someone who just bets or folds.

I couldnt give you an exact stat to work with but you just have to get an idea from experience.

Say a guy is 50VPIP 2AF and 45WTSD.

You can see that he comes in with a lot of bad hands so his AF is going to be much lower than a tight player simply because he wont connect to as high a percentage of flops/turns.

Now considering that he sees a lot of flops it depends on how many showdowns he sees to determine really how aggressive he is. If his WTSD was a low figure like 25 then you could probably say that he rarely calls and probably only bets TPGK. But since it is 45 he sees nearly half his hands to the river so you have to assume that he will be calling with all kinds of rubbish.

For a player to have this kind of aggression and be so loose means he will be bluffing a great deal and betting a lot of weak hands to add to his weak calls.

I wouldnt be folding too many showdownable hands against this guy.

[Bizot]

awesome i'll bump it for any more tips /images/graemlins/smile.gif

thanks help

[MAxx]

not necessarily any correlation whatsoever. especially if you don't include pf stats in total AF factor.

post flop aggression has nothing to do with vpip.

often a loose passive wanker preflop is a loose passive wanker postflop, but not necessarily so. Or said another more properly you could take in a lot of flops, but that doesnt really dictate your bet&raise vs call percentage post flop.

You could take in a 80% of flops... and continue to call passively like a station.

Or you could take in 80% of flops and fold the flop quite a bit, only playing flops that hit you hard or give you good draws... and betting and raising and much more often than calling when favorable flops come around.

So I don't really know what BK intended.

Maybe he is trying to say what he see's on avg from these high vpip folks. But I don't think there is enough correlation to do a simplified formula as you suggest.

Edit to bring a little clarity.

[Bizot]

he was saying a 50% VPIP with 1.7 AF is as agressive as a 20% VPIP with 4AF or something like that

[MAxx]

I am saying that is not an accurate statement.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
not necessarily any correlation whatsoever. especially if you don't include pf stats in total AF factor.

post flop aggression has nothing to do with vpip.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny. I just posted about this in another thread.

Lets start out with why we care about AF in the first place: We want to use it as a gauge of hand strength. A passive player should have a stronger hand when he bets and raises than an aggressive player.

Consider 2 players:

Player #1 plays very few hands pre flop. Lets say he plays AA-77, AK-AJ, KQ.

Player #2 plays all of his hands pre flop from AA down to 32o.

Now lets say that player #1 and player #2 both raise 25% of the time post flop, bet 25% of the time post flop, call 25% of the time post flop and fold 25% of the time post flop. Both players will have AFs of 2.

Are you telling me that we can use AF in a vacuum(without VPIP stats) to gauge hand strength? These two players have very different hand strengths post flop, but identical AFs. Player 1 plays much stronger hands pre flop and therefore you must give him credit for a stronger hand post flop than player 2. If you only had AF values for the 2 players, you would mistakenly assume their bets and raises represent similar hand strengths.

[bottomset]

I think the main reason there is this comparison is that loose players ie 50%+ VPIP don't fold postflop very much in order for them to maintain a AF near 2, they have to fire away a lot of the time, since they still call a pretty large % of the time

[bicyclekick]

He's overexagerating what I was saying. I'm just saying that a person with a higher vpip will be betting/raising with less and is more aggressive per point of aggression level because of that.

I'd consider a 40/10/1.5 much more crazy aggro than a 20/10/2.3.

[MAxx]

[ QUOTE ]
He's overexagerating what I was saying. I'm just saying that a person with a higher vpip will be betting/raising with less and is more aggressive per point of aggression level because of that.

I'd consider a 40/10/1.5 much more crazy aggro than a 20/10/2.3.

[/ QUOTE ]

when you are contesting a pot against one of these players, which one is more likely to be calling?

Isnt it one thing to say that x player is more aggressive with less of a hand and another thing to say one player is more aggressive overall?

[MAxx]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you telling me that we can use AF in a vacuum ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I was saying quite the opposite, which was xAG @ xVPIP does not directly translate to a tighter preflop players' postflop agresion.

[Jeff W]

I misread your intent in your original post. Your point was that AF is not dependent on VPIP, whereas I thought your point was the VPIP and AF are disconnected metrics. If I have got your point the second go-round, then you are correct.

Even for two players of equal VPIP and equal AF, you might see wildly different post flop styles: (25+25)/(25)=(10+10)/(10).