Aggressive/Passive Pre-flop Tables Defined

S&M in HPFAP and other hold'em books often mention how hand selection standards should change depending on how aggressive (a lot of betting pre-flop) or passive (litte betting pre-flop) a table is.


Most hold'em authors mention that you can sneak in early with small pairs and medium suited connectors if the game is passive, etc..


But what precisely is passive? (Neither S&M or Ciaffone/Brier, nor Lee Jones precisely define the term.) If on average there is a single pre-flop raise 50% of the time, is this table passive or aggressive. (I would define the table as slightly on the aggresssive side.) What about there being a pre-flop raise 40% or 30% of the time? Passive?

What is the dividing line percentage wise between the two categories.


Note: I am not talking about tables in which there are usually no pre-flop raises, but when someone does bet, it usually gets capped. These tables belong in their own special category. Nor am I talking about tables in which players play very loosely (ie. come in w/ sub-standard hands). I'm just talking about pre-flop raising, usually for one bet (occaisionally re-raised).

These tables. You just need to know at what particular point in the game, with what particular players are in, is it worth limping UTG with hands that play well multi-way. This is more of a feel based on recent obsevations. Just make sure you adjust as the game conditions change.

I sat in a 10-20 yesterday that started out very loose-moderately passive, then quickly changed to tight-aggressive. This was a main table that was filled by the must move game when the loosies busted out. Needless to say, this is when you tighten up, and get aggressive with only quality hands. Prior to that, I was able to play a few more hands up front.

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I play more by actual time events, than by percentage.

Thanks for responding Noo Yawk. In my question I'm assuming that I'm playing with the same bunch of players for an hour.

Lets say that typically, one out of three hands is raised pre-flop. But then three hands are raised in a row. It is very possible that this is a statistical anomally, in that big pocket pairs were dealth three times in a row to various players. (Many of the low-medium limit people I have been playing with lately often (or usually!) check AK from all positions. If these hands come to a showdown the anomaly of big pairs being dealth to one or more players in a row can potentially be confirmed.) In this case, I wouldn't necessarily assume that the table has turned aggressive and that I can't limp in with hands I want to see cheaply.

But I agree, if players are constantly coming and going, the whole idea of trying to determine some percentage chance that there will be pre-flop raises becomes problematic. I guess I'm just trying to find some type of mathematical criteria by which I can justify limping in with some hands. I don't know how most players deal with this problem.

"I don't know how most players deal with this problem."


One way is to open-limp up front with the medium and small pairs in all but the cappiest games, but not to open-limp with the medium-to-small suited connectors and one-gappers ever. Then it doesn't matter what kind of game it is, and a calmer ride is assured.


Tommy