PT AF total - is 1.66 too passive?

[donger]

I recently auto-rated myself and was horrified to see that I had slipped from TA-A to TA-N according to bisonbisons AR rules.

My current overall stats for limit ring games:
VP$IP: 19.49% PFR %: 9.37% WTSD: 32.29% AF total: <font color="red">1.66 </font>

Should this be higher? Am I not raising enough when bet into? Am I not value betting enough on the end? I've always fancied myself TA-A, and this is definitely a blow to my self esteem. HELP!

[meep_42]

Is "include pf into total aggression" unchecked?

And without more specific information, it is impossible to tell.

-d

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
Is "include pf into total aggression" unchecked?

And without more specific information, it is impossible to tell.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, whoops. Now it's 3.03. *whew*

[meep_42]

Now that it's unchecked, it should.

3 is good.

I strugge to stay at 2.2. I'm such a weakie.

-d

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
Now that it's unchecked, it should.

3 is good.

I strugge to stay at 2.2. I'm such a weakie.



[/ QUOTE ]

A total aggression factor of 3 is awfully high, and for most SS limits (2/4 and 3/6) I personally think is way too high. I think a reasonable number is in the low 2's.

[donger]

Really? I thought 3 was pretty good, especially coupled with tight PF numbers (19% and 9%).

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now that it's unchecked, it should.

3 is good.

I strugge to stay at 2.2. I'm such a weakie.



[/ QUOTE ]

A total aggression factor of 3 is awfully high, and for most SS limits (2/4 and 3/6) I personally think is way too high. I think a reasonable number is in the low 2's.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be a bit too high, but I wouldn't say way too high. I'm about 2.8 at $5/10. Of course, the higher in limits you go, the higher this will likely get.

Minneapolis represent.

[KDawgCometh]

I normally include PF aggression in my ag factor totals, should I have the PF totals box unchecked?

[meep_42]

[ QUOTE ]
I normally include PF aggression in my ag factor totals, should I have the PF totals box unchecked?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the general practice.

-d

[Pokey]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? I thought 3 was pretty good, especially coupled with tight PF numbers (19% and 9%).

[/ QUOTE ]

Two comments:

1. There isn't really "good" and "bad." There's "what works for my style" and "what spreads me like a thin paste across a wall of enemies."
2. VPIP 19% isn't particularly tight. It's safely in the "healthy" range, sure, but it's pretty normal for 2+2ers at the 2/4 tables.

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now that it's unchecked, it should.

3 is good.

I strugge to stay at 2.2. I'm such a weakie.



[/ QUOTE ]

A total aggression factor of 3 is awfully high, and for most SS limits (2/4 and 3/6) I personally think is way too high. I think a reasonable number is in the low 2's.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be a bit too high, but I wouldn't say way too high. I'm about 2.8 at $5/10. Of course, the higher in limits you go, the higher this will likely get.

Minneapolis represent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I've been thinking that as I move up in limits, my AF might slide a little bit. Most of my numbers are from me mercilessly hammering on the 3/6 and 2/4 donkeys with bets and value raises. It seems like as you encounter more aggro players as you move up, you might start to integrate more passivity ("throwing them some rope") into your play.

[GrekeHaus]

You might be right. There are certainly more LAGs at the higher limits of party which might mean that you're calling down more. However, at very high levels there are a lot more pots that will be won uncontested. The ones that are contested are often two very good hands going HU, which often means capping the betting on many streets.