PT agression factor

[TheIrishThug]

i know pt says that the split of agressive/passive is around 1.5. however from playing limit and nl, it looks like 1.5 is on the money for limit and pretty low for nl.
has anyone calculated the magic number for nl?

[illunious]

NL PT aggression factors tend to be misleading because peoples bet sizes can give someone more or less opportunities to call. Also, calling an all-in lowers your AF, even though you might have raised.

These rules use 1.8 for the TA autorating. From my experience with small stakes NL, this is pretty accurate.

[K C]

This depends a lot on the site you're playing. As a rule you'd want your AF to be lower at NL/PL, so if it's higher that's a good thing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I wouldn't worry too much about averages though and tend to look more to the particular player, and you're going to have to look deeper than one stat anyway, especially this one which is garbage pretty much [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

KC

I found that in NL , if someone's AF is above 2.0, they are often bluffing every other hand or so. They are full of it.

[K C]

I"m going to give you an example of where that's not the case. Gramdpa only plays aces kings and queens pre-flop, and always folds if there's an overcard to his top pair. He bets or raises on a 10 to 1 ratio with calling - he only calls once in a blue moon. His AF is thus 10.0 and he's never bluffed once in the 80 years he's been playing poker [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

What you really need here is the percentage of times a player bets as a factor of his total moves. Starting at about 5%, the higher you get over that, the more a player bluffs or semi-bluffs. For instance with a 12 he's more likely to be bluffing than not. Keep in mind too that in NL you have to look at the bet sizes as well. A lot of LAG's play loose and crazy with the small stuff but when they bring out the big guns they really mean it and really have it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

KC