Aggression... Is It Vital?

[RocketManJames]

Been playing a lot of 10/20 recently, and against certain opponents, I've found that passive play with position works great in heads-up pots. So, let me toss a few questions out here... let's think about this generally, and not in terms of the select opponents I mention above.

Question: On each of the following streets, if you are NOT ALLOWED to raise on that street (but you can still bet out)... can you still be a winning player?

-RMJ

[sy_or_bust]

Come on, you must know this poll is retarded.

Anyway, when you're in position in a heads-up pot, it is certainly sometimes correct to use the "call call call" line, just like OOP it's often strong to use "check/call, check/call" followed by bet or check/fold.

[shant]

I'm not sure what's going on here but I just voted can't win because raising is fun.

[RocketManJames]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on, you must know this poll is retarded.

Anyway, when you're in position in a heads-up pot, it is certainly sometimes correct to use the "call call call" line, just like OOP it's often strong to use "check/call, check/call" followed by bet or check/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

The poll was *not* meant for the heads-up pots... I am asking generally... just how important/vital the "raise" option is for a solid player.

Think blackjack... as rules change, the house edge changes. If they allowed you to resplit aces, or if dealer hits on soft 17, the edge can get better for you or worse.

How much of a difference in expectation would you see if you were suddenly not allowed to use the Raise option on each street? Can you overcome this by great play?

Maybe the poll is dumb, but I don't think that the question I ask is all that useless.

-RMJ

[sy_or_bust]

There are times when passive play is best, times when aggressive play is best, etc. It's so dependent on every tiny little variable that the question in its broad form is misleading and meaningless. You're much better off posting a hand, and starting a discussion on the passive and aggressive options.

If you have a pure theory question like the above, you can try the Poker Theory forum, but I wouldn't be too optimistic.

[RocketManJames]

[ QUOTE ]
There are times when passive play is best, times when aggressive play is best, etc. It's so dependent on every tiny little variable that the question in its broad form is misleading and meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you said with respect to a time and a place for aggressive or passive play. And, while a lot of variables come into play when making the decision whether to play aggressively or not, I do believe that some generalizations can be made.

From what I see in the poll (and, I do understand that the sample size is small)...

Raising is much more critical in early rounds than in later ones. Raising in later ones simply enhances your wins, but raising in early ones is essential if you want to win.

This implies that while there are several reasons to raise, the raise's most valuable trait is the ability to knock out players and protect your hand.

Of course, I could be reading too much into this, but I don't think so.

-RMJ

[sthief09]

sounds like you're overdoing the passive thing

[SackUp]

The more you raise, the more you win.

you cannot win as much if you don't raise.

sure you can win, but not nearly enough.

Polltard!!

[SackUp]

btw I refuse to vote b/c this makes no sense.

[PTjvs]

I was playing 5/10 SH last year. I had never read any poker book. I didn't even know what 2+2 WAS. Basically, my game plan was to limp any A, or any 2 paint cards, and bet/call any time I flopped TP, and fold if I didnt flop a pair or 4flush/open ended. I ONLY raised AJ+, 99 + & KQ, and I didnt care at all what position I was in. I only very rarely bluffed. I sometimes semibluffed. But I typically didnt even raise hands like TPGK in position, Id just call down. I did try to find relatively passive tables to play at.

I made almost 1,000 BB last year as this player.

You tell me, is it possible to win playing passively?

jvs