[excession]

Ah - use of Flop aggression as opposed to Total Post-Flop Aggression...

Obviously flop aggression is the biggest component of aggregate aggression, so we are probably not talking about a lot of folks here..

The historical reason is that I did start checking aggression on all three streets (as I still do for UA's) but found it cut the aggressive player numbers back too much.

I kept it as just the flop agression as you will see the aggregate PFA for every player using GT+ or PV anyway so if you see a passive PFA number against an aggressive icon you at least get a heads up that that player may like to call flops and bet at you on the later streets.. currently with GT+ you can't see agression by street of course..

In pure analytical terms use of the aggregate PFA would make more sense of course..but having spent so long doing the runs balancing the numbers I'm loathe to switch back unless I can see a real practical benefit.. I may do it if it proves a big issue in practice but so far the feedback I ahve had indicates that under these rules the aggressives are more accurately tagged than under previous ones..