Aggression

[Voltron87]

i cbet tons when im in position. slightly less OOP. i bet a lot of flops hard when checked to when im against straightforward players. i raise a lot of weak leads big. i bet draws from all positions against all players. i call with trash in position to take the pot away later when im playing a player who can fold a hand.

one thing ive been doing more recently is open betting flops when i call a raise in a headsup pot OOP. if its a player who stays in line they fold a lot. this is something i do 1/6 or so times.

[xorbie]

This is definitely a solid move on a drawless flop.

[Voltron87]

yeah when used sparingly its very good.

before about a week ago all the bluffing i would do was betting. i would never raise with air. i would semibluff, but never really raise other peoples bets with no hand. its all about finding which players will give you respect when you do it.

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all LAGs are maniacs. The differences are huge.

[mudbuddha]

if im not mistaken, you often check the flop vs an opponent but if he happens to play alot of marginal holdings and mid pairs, and other hands of the sort, you are more inclined to raise him simply because he will fold many more hands.

As a LAG, personally, i am not looking for encounters because there will other places where i can take down the pot with ease with my sub-par holdings. so im sure many people think along those lines.

[orange]

[ QUOTE ]


Not all LAGs are maniacs. The differences are huge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe my inexperience leads me to different thoughts. During my homegame playing (basically all I play, no internet poker), the two were pretty close. So close, that I used the same tactics against both maniacs/LAGs.

The definition of a maniac- will play any 2, raise anywhere from 2x-50x the BB, will bet/call/check with air and who are very crazy postflop (their plays often make no sense).

LAG- loose aggressive, will C-bet 100% of the time and sometimes fire 2 barrels, will raise PF frequently with looser standards, will take many pots uncontested.

Please tell me if my thoughts is wrong.

Do calling standards PF differentiate between the two? How about the folding equity between the two? Are they similar?

P.S.- this thread has been very informative and helpful. Hope the responses keep coming.

[mudbuddha]

a maniac may have no raising standards

loose aggressive just has "wider range" raising standards than tighties

[soah]

Maniacs are out of control. You generally find them in the limit games hitting nothing but the bet/raise button on every street of every hand.

LAGs have standards. They don't play every hand, and they don't try to win every pot. Assuming that loose players are bad is no more accurate than assuming all tight players are good. LAGs that have a solid grasp of game theory are difficult to combat in shorthanded situations where no one is likely to make near-nut hands against them. They don't spew chips drawing dead. They always have pot equity when they are putting significant money in. They don't make bets on the end that fold out worse hands and get called by better hands.

Imagine playing a heads-up game where you have JJ, TT, 99, AK, AQ, or KQ out of position every single hand, and your opponent is dealt two random cards. You are not allowed to bet or raise. Do you think you will beat this game against a competent player who is aware of your range of starting hands? (You are about a 2:1 preflop favorite with that range of hands.)

[xorbie]

Bump.

[KowCiller]

[ QUOTE ]
This is definitely a solid move on a drawless flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've found that I've had success with these delayed bluff plays on 1 draw flops as well such as:

7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] or 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] when in position against a villain with TAG stats who I think can lay down TP or an overpair to some aggression. Using flops like these against a thinking player, I gain FE on both a blank the obvious draw hitting the turn. It seems to have worked fairly well in the $200NL PP games, but YMMV.

Additionally, I'll usually raise or checkraise with any two against a weak lead heads up or on a 3 way flop. I might even do this too much, actually, but it's a good way to isolate a player that usually doesn't like their hand a whole lot and push others out.

As with most things in poker, these moves are player dependent. I think there is a decent subsection of the full ring $200NL players with TAG'ish stats that are thinking about your range of hands but don't have a deep enough understanding of post flop play to "smell the rat" and play back at the right times. (I feel I fall into this group, actually, heh). I think these are the players that should be targeted the most when trying to make these type of plays. They are thinking just enough to convince themselves they should fold.

Against these same players, I think it's also good to use the blind steal/squeeze play against, which I haven't done a lot lately but I'm trying to incorporate it more into my game.

I don't know if the above rambling is obvious or overly simplistic but there's my take. I'm currently trying to learn how to play 6max competently, and I think thus far I might be taking plays like these a little too far.

KoW