Re: general situational question
I didn't go into detail on the whole post-flop AF thing in my original response, but here is my view on it from a post I wrote some time ago (and in a different, non-SH, forum) when I thought some posters were misinterpreting that particular stat:
[ QUOTE ]
Post-Flop Aggression Factor. The implications of the PT post-flop aggression factor is frequently misunderstood. The problem stems from the fact that the AgFactor cannot be read in a vacuum -- it is highly influenced by VP$IP and # of flops seen. In our ML FAQ we restate the consensus view that an AgFactor of 2.0 or higher is cconsidered "aggressive;" 1.0 - 2.0 is "neutral;" and less than 1.0 is "passive." These ranges are by and large considered standard. However, such ranges are based upon an assumed VP$IP of 15 - 20 or so. When we encounter a VP$IP of 65% the same scale does not apply. Why? The AgFactor is calculated as (bet % + raise %) / call %. A 1.5 AgFactor is considered neutral around here, but that's for someone with a reasonable VPIP -- our tendency to bet and raise more than call (and thus get a 1.5 AgFactor) is heavily influenced by the fact that (1) we generally only see post-flop play with strong pre-flop hands, and (2) we generally fold when faced with a poor flop and action from others. To maintin a 1.5 AF (again, more betting and raising than calling) when our VP$IP is 65%, we would need to either: (1) be a very disciplined folder when the flop misses us, so that even though we're seeing ~65% of the flops we are getting away from them immediately when we miss; or (2) bet and raise a whole crapload of terrible and marginal hands. Most 60% VP$IP players are not disciplined folders post-flop, so you should generally assume that a 60/7/1.5 player is betting and raising a whole crapload of terrible or marginal holdings until proven otherwise.
[/ QUOTE ]
|