[fatdave]

I think the point I'm trying to make here is not so much that I played a specific hand badly (although I may have). The point I'm trying to make is that when somebody slow-plays, or plays passively, they give me the opportunity to steal the pot away from them, not by stealing it outright, but by getting lucky on the turn or the river.

The other player then goes on a rant about "how lucky I am", even though if they had taken control of the hand before the flop or on the flop, I wouldn't have been in a position to get lucky.

Perhaps the hand I showed wasn't really a good example. Take, for example, the guy that smooth calls with AA in mid position, allowing me to check something like 8c9c in the BB. The flop comes 7c Td Ac, giving me an open-ended straight draw and a flush draw (I used the Ac instead of say, the 2c, so that I wouldn't actually be ahead with 8c9c after the flop, but would instead be a 3-2 dog). I check, AA bets, I check-raise all in and then hit on the turn or the river. In a situation like this, if AA had raised preflop, I most likely wouldn't have been in the pot after the flop.

I realize that in tournament poker, sometimes you have to take risks based on stack size / blind size / level time / etc...

...but what I am wondering is, is this sort of aggressive play going to be -EV in the long run, or will this aggression pay off for me?

Some times, the plays I make will be due to a bad read (for example, I thought the passive player in the OP had something like TT or JJ, and was calling on the flop, hoping I would check to him on the turn and let him take it from me, or maybe so he could check behind and try to showdown cheaply (if he thought I was bluffing)).

Think of it like this... it's a cold winter's day, and you go to a convenience store and leave the engine running and car unlocked while you go inside. A car thief takes your car. Obviously, the thief is more at fault, since they stole your car. However, shouldn't you take some of the blame for giving them such an opportunity?

While the thief may have done a dumb thing (semi-bluffed into a slow-player), if you had locked your car (raised pre-flop or re-raised on the flop), they wouldn't have had a chance to steal your car (get lucky after the flop).

If you are a professional car thief, the best way to steal cars is to find the ones that are unlocked (take pots from passive players, or somebody representing passivity (whether they are really slow-playing or not)). You don't walk the streets at night and hi-jack a car at a stoplight (bet into a dangerous situation, like somebody that has actually shown aggression).

Is this a valid analogy? If the analogy is valid, is it +EV in tournament poker?