Passive play theory vol.1

[haakee]

Wrong. People who see lots of flops end up with crappier hands on average postflop. I don't believe the correlation is exactly linear though, so 50/0.4 is still probably more passive than 25/0.8, but I bet it's close.

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. People who see lots of flops end up with crappier hands on average postflop. I don't believe the correlation is exactly linear though, so 50/0.4 is still probably more passive than 25/0.8, but I bet it's close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. sure people who see more flops are playing more bad hands, but that is irrelevant to HOW they play them postflop.

Aggression calculation is simply a function of the equation behind the number in the PT software. I'm fairly certain that VP$P isn't in the equation for factoring the Agg number, so the two are essentially independent.

If you raise the flop exactly 5% of the time, it is really irrelevant (from an aggression factor standpoint) if you see 10% of the flops or 50%. passive is passive. And if you raise the flop 90% of the time, your aggression factor will be quite high, regardless of if you see 5% of the flops or all of them.

-Scott

[adspar]

[ QUOTE ]
If you raise the flop exactly 5% of the time, it is really irrelevant (from an aggression factor standpoint) if you see 10% of the flops or 50%. passive is passive. And if you raise the flop 90% of the time, your aggression factor will be quite high, regardless of if you see 5% of the flops or all of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

But which is more scary:

-A bet from someone who sees 100% of the flops and bets 5% of them
or
-A bet from someone who sees 15% of the flops and bets 5% of them

[adspar]

The point of knowing these statistics for your opponent is to help you put him on a hand range and react accordingly.

If 2 players have the same AF, the player with the higher VPIP is doing more postflop betting and raising, so you put him on a wider range of hands when he bets.

Everyone was looking at the guy's 0.4 AF and figuring he must have a monster. My point is just that with a 50% VPIP, his aggression doesn't mean as much as a 25% VPIP with 0.4AF.

I also suggest that maybe you could put him on a similar range of hands as someone with a 25% VPIP and 0.8 AF. I don't think its an exact comparison, but worth thinking about.

[imashyboi]

Here's my thoughts prior to viewing the disclosed hands. Upon sitting down the table you have to size everyone up, not just by numbers but by how they play and their starting hands. Just cause a loose passive player limps doesn't mean he has something very good. Most of the time they either have medicore hand or a real strong hand. A loose player could also limp and have a small pair or a hand like QJ, QT, T9 and hoping to get callers. A raise with KQ is definitely a must if you want to play, calling here would be the biggest mistake. They also give you some type of information since they'll usually make it 3bets if they do have a big pair.

Flop: Betting here is standard.

Turn: I will raise here as a semi-bluff and hope I can make someone who might have a two pair or a bigger flush to fold. Calling a 3bet, I'm going to have a real hard time folding the river here though cause the pot will be pretty big. If it's checked back to me I'm betting again.

River: Call no matter what unless someone shows real aggression.

[surfdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. People who see lots of flops end up with crappier hands on average postflop. I don't believe the correlation is exactly linear though, so 50/0.4 is still probably more passive than 25/0.8, but I bet it's close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. sure people who see more flops are playing more bad hands, but that is irrelevant to HOW they play them postflop.

Aggression calculation is simply a function of the equation behind the number in the PT software. I'm fairly certain that VP$P isn't in the equation for factoring the Agg number, so the two are essentially independent.

If you raise the flop exactly 5% of the time, it is really irrelevant (from an aggression factor standpoint) if you see 10% of the flops or 50%. passive is passive. And if you raise the flop 90% of the time, your aggression factor will be quite high, regardless of if you see 5% of the flops or all of them.

-Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Scott. I think you are very wrong here. It has been discussed many times but is also discussed in this current thread .

[PokerBob]

i like a turn raise. sb sure is acting like he has a big'ol [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], and i want him to pay to see that river.