Mathematical Justification for Loose-Aggressive Play
 

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

Thanks.

Re: Mathematical Justification for Loose-Aggressive Play
 

Daniel Negreanu isn't exactly loose aggressive... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
Gus talks about his style in his article @ CardPlayer

Re: Mathematical Justification for Loose-Aggressive Play
 

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.

Re: Mathematical Justification for Loose-Aggressive Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel Negreanu isn't exactly loose aggressive... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
Gus talks about his style in his article @ CardPlayer

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh.. where?

nm. A case of mistaken references.

Re: Mathematical Justification for Loose-Aggressive Play
 

[ 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.

Re: Mathematical Justification for Loose-Aggressive Play
 

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.

Re: Mathematical Justification for Loose-Aggressive Play
 

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

Re: Mathematical Justification for Loose-Aggressive Play
 

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

Re: Mathematical Justification for Loose-Aggressive Play
 

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

Re: Mathematical Justification for Loose-Aggressive Play
 

[ 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.