Beyond aggression

[Greg J]

We are good little Sklanskites here. And like good little Sklanskites we understand that strategies that emphasize betting and raising are superior to those that emphasize checking and calling. Aggressive play is correct play. When someone makes a stat post we quickly jump on aggression factors lower than 2.

I believe this leads many of us to often advocate aggression for aggression's sake. We need to conciously understand that we are aggressive in our play, and play a game that emphasized betting and raise, because it is strategically correct play.

I am writing this because I think my game has only recently reached a point that I have began to fully understand this point to the degree where I apply it to my game. I have started to develop a different mindset. Instead of constantly thinking about, "where can I raise?" I have started asking myself "what is the right play here?" Often the play is call. Sometimes, it's to call when I think I may have the best hand and am not slowplaying. I am not longer thinking in terms of playing an "aggressive style," but rather I have begun to emphasize playing an optimal style.

I don't want this post to be miscontrued as "you play to aggressively." It's not. This represents an evolution in my thought process about poker, that was really brought about by the excellent book by King Yao. The truth is that many newer players DO miss value bets and raises, and are not properly betting strong draws properly.

This post is more for you guys that are betting and raising when you should, but are often also often betting and raising when you shouldn't. You have developed an aggressive mindset, and are predisposed toward taking a more aggressive action when you are in doubt about something. You bet and raise often when you should check and call. You have the idea that "aggressive poker = good" hardwired into yr brain. I was a great example of this. But you have to understand that aggression just happens to be the correct strategy so often. There is nothing inherently magical about betting and raising that makes it good.

I decided to make this post after reading (and participating in) this thread in SS. It illustrates and example where Hero did nothing but call the whole hand. And I think he played the hand perfectly. I hope this post made some sense. I fear it may have come off as just a huge rant.

[nomadtla]

good post and a great response in that other thread. I think hero played it well and agree with your ideas in this thread. I used to be weak/tight and 2+2 made me more agressive though a lot of the times I go through my HH and think "2+2 has made me a Lag" I am working on getting back to that ballance of which you have just attained. So it will probably take eons for me.

[RatFink]

Great post. I had exact thoughts on that hand and was questioning myself because I seemed so far off the norm of responses.

[kapw7]

That's a very good point you made. I have been guilty myself sometimes of checking my AF when playing and feeling bad when AF<2. Agression is good as it can be bad when not applied correctly. Especially in the micros agressiveness can be something of a double sword. Opponents at micros call too much. On the other hand LAGs at micros do a lot of stupid bluff plays. Agressiveness means bet or fold - don't call. So agressive players at micros can find themselves too many times attacking with overcards LPP players who call with a low pair or find(?) themselves folding the best hand against LAG players' extreme agressiveness or playing back at LAGs when they can cash out more on their overagression on further streets. I have played in very loose passive (fishy) sites whre I found my AF to be lower. Not a lot of value to bet with overcards (AK etc) against 2 or more LPPs (one is different) or playing a fit or fold game against serial LAG offenders.