[excession]

As someone (like AP10) who has spent a lot of time trying to make use of the current flawed 'aggression' stat, think we need to be clear about what we mean by aggression (and weakness and passivity) and what use we want to make of them

To me 'aggression' means the act of escalating the pot. I want to know 'how hard is it going to be to control the size of the pot against this guy?'

There is a problem here straight away as at the moment a 1x BB bet and a push all-in are treated as showing equivalent aggression. The next generation of NL PT (or PT type) trackers is actually going to have to factor in the size of bets somehow. It might be handy to see for each player the average flop, turn, river and showdown pot-sizes where that player was still in a hand on that street..

Also when playing we tend to factor in positional factors and 'who has the lead' when judging aggression - if you are OOP, betting into a pre-flop raiser is much more aggressive than if you were the PFR and are simply leading out...or if you bet out on a flush draw board OTB when it's checked around to you that is much less aggresive than check raising from EP in the same scenario.. I suspect that's a bit sophisticated for the moment though..

The current 'aggression stat' really indicates how unlikely it is that the player will call. Passivity in PT is about making more calls than bets or raises. It's still useful to show that.

Weakness is the other general stat - how likely is is that someone will fold - we can already see that for each street with PT.

I think trying to use one stat - 'aggression'- to indicate all of aggression, passivity and weakness is asking too much - that's the real flaw at the moment- PA and AP10 are quite right in this thread to focus on escalation and not weakness or passivity (ie calling station tendencies) but to get a decent read you are going to need to know how to use all three...