[K C]

Aggression in terms of the "standard" formula, post flop bets+raises/post flop calls, isn't really even worth referencing really.

If you're skeptical about this, and there's a lot of people who I expect will be, consider this. What we're really after here is to interpret the meaning of various moves by an opponent, and in this case a bet or raise. So you refer to the AF for this. Here's the problem though. This will be affected by how loose or tight the player is.

Let's take 2 players - 1 very tight but aggressive one, and one really loose one. The tight player only sees the flop when he's got a good hand, and only plays it post flop if it remains good. He rarely calls in fact. Player 2 likes action and will bet or raise a lot, but also doesn't like to fold so he's calling with a lot of hands too.

Player 1 will have a higher aggression, and Player 2 will have a lower aggression, even though a bet or raise from Player 1 is going to indicate strength and a bet or raise from Player 2 is going to indicate much less strength.

In a sense, Player 2 is less aggressive, even though he may bet and raise 3 times as often, but this is going to lead us far afield when it comes down to deciding what to do with players based upon using AF, which actually doesn't even tell us anything useful.

This is just one example but it shows you how unreliable AF can be when trying to put someone on a hand.

With my work with Poker Sherlock where we have a lot more stats to work with I've actually had to write some new formulas to correct this, taking out the bias of looseness and tightness and formulating aggression in terms of a more true indication of bet and raise frequency, so that we can now take these numbers and calculate the average strength of hand that's being played with a given action from a player.

KC