Aggression

[FreakDaddy]

Good post, although I'm not sure if it was intentional to be vague about what you wanted to 'discuss'.

I used to consider myself a thinking LAG, but after I moved back down limits and started over I thought I'd try a different approach. I got pretty tired of putting myself in difficult situations over and over again, although my initial theory was that it would make me a better poker player (and better read of hands), which I think I did. I'm not btw saying you play LAG.

Any ways, I used to fire barrel after barrel and even into big fields OOP. I don't do that anymore (not saying you do). [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I've learned to be a lot more patient. I primarily changed my style so that I could play a lot more tables, because to play effective LAG you have to make good reads. If I played more than 3 tabels, my reads were real bad and very reliant on GT+.

Now I play 5 or more tables, and I play great positional poker. I raise a lot with almost any two if there are several limpers in front. I'll raise from the SB and try and get it HU's and bet the flop. I won't bet marginal hands into big fields though, and I tend to call down more often when I have position with marginal-good hands, where in the past I would raise and try and push people off other marginal hands. It's just not a very effective strategy at 100nl/200nl.

As far as LAG's go, if they are thinking LAG's the best thing to do is to come over the top of them pre-flop if possible. Otherwise calling down isn't a bad option against them. I don't think this is weak, it's just good poker. Plus they'll get the picture if you do it a few times. Coming over the top after the flop isn't such a good idea, unless you have a great hand of course.

Unfortunately a lot of LAG's that aren't neccessarily good LAG's like to gamble, so you're going to have to conceed a lot of marginal sitations and let them pick up the small pots while you wait for the big pot. It's not being defensive or weak (which my ego used to tell me it was), it's just smart patient poker.

Ideally you want to be the person putting the pressure on your opponents, but it's not bad poker to wait for good situations and win the big pots against them. At least that's my two cents.

All in all, I actually call A LOT more then I used to. I used to hold to the motto, Fold or raise, only call with monsters. Not anymore however.

[Macquarie]

Is it true to say that we should only be agressive when that aggression might cause the villain to lay down a better hand than ours?

Being aggressive when only better hands call our aggressive bets and raises is surely -EV.

This thinking I guess applies to made hands and to drawing hands, while for drawing hands aggression has the added advantage of disguise.

[stu-unger]

i used to be a big time LAG, actually more like a borderline maniac. i feel like at the higher levels being very aggressive is needed to succeed. at the smaller stakes games though i dont think being super aggro is that great. in my evolution as a poker player i have found that the call can be a lot more powerful than the raise with marginal and drawing hands. i luv to put presure on my opponents, but i dont think there is enough fold equity in the sea to make it optimal. i do think that in order to be a complete player u need to involve the plays that u talked about soah. i do believe that if u read hands well than any style can work in nl. i know this was just useless babble, but i figured id add my opinion.

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah, gutshot was a mistake, I just put in a random number.

edit: another example would be like A7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

flop: 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
villan checks/ you check

turn: 3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
villan bets/ you raise

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking more along the lines of him checking the turn, and I bet. If he bets again I will usually call or fold, as I've found that my folding equity seems to be pretty low in the game I've been playing lately (400 short at Party). People that bet again there usually have enough of a hand that they want a showdown.

Some other clarifications... in limped pots I am much more likely to raise the flop with an obvious draw. If I just call it will be easy to put me on a hand so I get no value when I hit. And in a family pot people will bet their top pair with an 'ok' kicker for protection and see a raise as a big show of strength, and not just a move.

If I've called a preflop raise heads up my opponent is less likely to put me on a draw when I call the flop, so I still have a chance to get paid a bit if I hit. And people who raised preflop will frequently have hands like overpairs that they don't want to fold, and they don't think I will need a big hand to raise them on the flop. So I'm merely putting in additional money as an underdog.

But the main "flaw" with my strategy is that it is tailored to exploit a specific error that many players make -- they play their cards preflop (raising), and they play their cards on the turn (either checking or betting), but on the flop they always bet regardless of their hand strength. A wise man once said that the way to win NL poker is to keep the pot small until you've figured out what everyone has. Since I gain no new information about their hand strength on the flop, I take the action which keeps the pot smallest until I can use the turn action to get a better read on them.

Poker is a game of exploiting weaknesses, but in many cases we fall into the trap of thinking that we've found a great strategy simply because our strategy happens to exploit the weaknesses displayed by many players in a particular game. Upon moving to a different (bigger) game you may find that your opponents do not have this weakness, and your strategy no longer works. So part of me wants to work on improving beyond my current strategy, but another part of me just gets pissed off when I raise the flop with nut outs and some clown shoves it all-in with AA and I'm priced out.

Back on the subject of "delayed aggression" again...

When watching poker on TV I frequently see very well-known "aggressive" players playing in manners that seem pretty non-aggressive. For example, they will raise preflop and check the flop. Also, they will frequently just call bets instead of raising. Obviously tournament poker is different because going broke is much worse for you... but I've seen enough of it to believe that there is more to being aggressive than just having a "raise or fold" mentality. Mixing up your play and bluffing some certain percentage of the time is aggressive, regardless of the specifics of each street.

[orange]

Don't really know what you want to discuss. But..

I think the best idea when playing against LAGs is to call down, or otherwise passive play.

It exploits their strength (extreme aggression) and we gain value from their bluffs. Playing against maniacs is often profitable when your TPTK becomes the nuts.

Poker is a game of adaptation, and like LAGs, your proposed aggression should be opponent specific. When trying to run over other players, obviously board texture, reads, position matters most.

I find that against LAGs, either check/calling hands such as TPGK or 2 pair is very profitable. Along the same lines, weak leads are good too.

Out-LAGing LAGs is chip spewing IMO, and unless you are up against a thinking LAGs who can lay down hands, patience is the key.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
Out-LAGing LAGs is chip spewing IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. Check/raising a LAGs continuation bets has a very high rate of success for me, and is great metagame (gets me paid off against others when I c/r). By definition, a LAG will often not have much of a hand when he is being agressive. If your chips beat him into the pot, he's really unlikely to be calling much.

In fact, LAGs are often the best players against which to use the bet/3-bet all in or bet and c/r turn all in if called. This is because their raising standards are so low that your fold equity against their range is higher, even if your fold equity against overpairs/TPTK is much lower than against a TAG.

The thing about playing LAG against a LAG is that it can generate a ton of action at the table which is very good if you are the best player and is also very profitable if done right. The key is really just to beat him into the pot with a hand that has some solid equity, that's all.

[orange]

xorbie,

What hands are you generally c/r-ing a LAG with? I do agree that bet/3-bet or c/r-AI are good plays against LAGs.

WhatI meant in my post was trying to outbet the LAGs with air (I think GodFather had a post titled "todays theme: aggressive or dumb?) -that signifies some of my thoughts.

Are you generally c/r-ing stuff like 66 on a 24J flop against an aggressive LAG? Do you ever c/r with complete air? (I know, I know, opponent dependent right?)

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you generally c/r-ing stuff like 66 on a 24J flop against an aggressive LAG?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that would suck in most cases. I'm not frequently playing 66 OOP HU against a LAG anyway, but if I was I would either fold or call down in this situation, highly player dependent.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you ever c/r with complete air? (I know, I know, opponent dependent right?)

[/ QUOTE ]

This will often be the only thing I will c/r a LAG with. There is a big difference between a LAG and a maniac. A LAG, let's say he raises he open raises 25%+ of his hands on the button/CO. Those 25%+ hands, if you have a rainbow flop without an A will have hit a pair around 1/3 of the time (factoring in the fact that he starts with a pair sometimes, but this is counteracted by the lack of an A on the flop, and his raising range is heavily skewed in the Ax direction).

So if the flop is Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], villain has at best a gutshot if he has NP. If he is willing to call a checkraise with TJ, more power to him. OTOH, If I happen to have TJ/9T/9J on this flop, I'm definitely check raising all day. Keep in mind, even if he calls with every single pair he has and some A high hands, he is still folding roughly 50% of the time assuming he c-bets with high frequency (I will not pull this against a villain who doesn't, for obvious reasons... in that situation I lead out a ton of flops).

[orange]

So are you normally playing OOP against LAGs?

With the example hand above (Q82), are you raising the flop with position against a LAG who frequently c-bets? Or are you more inclined to maybe call/ raise or bet most any turns?

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
So are you normally playing OOP against LAGs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I play 6 max exclusively, this often means a 4 handed table, so yes. There's not much you can do when a LAG has position on you 50% of the time as is often the case.

[ QUOTE ]
With the example hand above (Q82), are you raising the flop with position against a LAG who frequently c-bets? Or are you more inclined to maybe call/ raise or bet most any turns?

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer to call and bet the turn, this gives me a better feel for it and lets me "freeroll" so to speak if he does have a made hand (i.e. if I call with TJ on that board, he will bet again with AA and I will typically fold but if I spike my 9 I take his stack, and if he checks I will bet but might check behind if I do hit my 9).