Pokertracker - aggression factor useless?

[Supern]

I have found the aggresion factor quite useless for loose players.
They may have an extremely low aggresion factor due to calling alot.
But they may bet quite loose as well and bluff alot.

1. How do you determine if a bettor is a loose or a tight bettor?

2. How do you determine if a caller is a loose or a tight bettor?


My answers:
1. I guess the best way to go is the Bet/Raise/Ch-raised stat for each street. And notes of course if you have any.

2. The best use for the aggresion factor is to determine if a caller is a threat I think. Low aggression and loose player means he is calling with all kind of crap.

[excession]

1. How do you determine if a bettor is a loose or a tight bettor?

Not sure exactly what you mean - if you are trying to spot bluffers from those who have the goods then aggression is quite useful - ultra aggresive players won't have the goods all the time and tend to bluff more, passive players who bet at/raise you probably do.
You can also link it into pre-flop tightness - the tighter they play the more premium hands they will have so you can expect more agression from them post flop (as they should have the best hadn more often). On the other hand, a player who has a Vp$iP of 50% and and aggression of 3+ is trying to do a lot of stealing..

2. How do you determine if a caller is a loose or a tight bettor?

Ah - spotting a calling station - pre-flop check their 'cold call%' if it's over 5% that's pretty fishy IMHO.. post-flop check their fold to flop bet% - less than 50% they like to call down too much... - players who call only with a good hand (weak-tight) will have high fold to flop bet% (over 80%), low WtsD% (below 20%) and high W$SD% (over 55%) - these folks can be bluffed on the flop but slow right down without a monster if they stay with you..

[Supern]

[ QUOTE ]
1. How do you determine if a bettor is a loose or a tight bettor?

Not sure exactly what you mean

[/ QUOTE ]

I have found there are players with high VPIP and low aggression (below 0.6) that bluffs alot. If you see them bet and look at their aggression stats you can't see that because they call alot as well.

I guess aggresion stats works better for tight players.

What I want to spot is how likely they are betting a draw or something like second pair.

[K C]

The only odd thing here is that I can't believe more people don't realize this. Aggression factor calculated the way PT does is more than useless - it's harmful

Without getting into too much detail here, and I know that there are going to be plenty of skeptics who see this stat on a pillar:

The primary purpose of a stat like this is and needs to be putting a player on a given range of hand strength. There are secondary uses such as determining the probability of as certain move like betting or raising in a given situation but those are best left to other stats. Oops, I forgot, PT doesn't have these stats [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Essentially the real problem with AF as a measure of bets+raises/calls is, as our friend mentioned, the fact that it doesn't account for how loose or tight a player is.

Let's take 2 different players and see what can happen. Player 1 is a rock who only bets and raises with the best hands. Player 2 is a loose aggressive who bets and raises wuite a bit as well as plays a ton of hands. Player 2 calls more as a percentage though so his AF is going to be lower than the rocks, perhaps even quite a bit lower in fact.

Looking at AF though how are we going to put these players on a range of hand strength? We aren't, and it's easy to see how this stat is useless. The rock is playing very strong hands and the LAG is playing weak ones. This stat doesn't help us at all here and actually if we don't understand it it can have us folding too much to the rock and not playing back enough against the LAG.

You cannot calculate aggression in any useful form without considering degrees of looseness, period. I've actually had to write new formulas for Poker Sherlock as there isn't anything out there at present which even comes close to calculating this properly, and I'm looking to modify things even further soon to get an even better read on things. We actually had to put the standard AF in the program as so many people think so highly of it that they may not consider our program without it, but the ultimate goal is to educate them about the fact that this stat can be very deceiving in a lot of instances and isn't really reliable at all.

KC

[MyMindIsGoing]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot calculate aggression in any useful form without considering degrees of looseness, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people say things like this? "period" If you are not willing to discuss things what the hell are you doing on a forum?!?!

[K C]

Hey what makes you think I'm not? I'm stating my opinion though and it's up to you to provide counterarguments - not just some lame attempt at flaming me.

KC

[Mendacious]

I play mostly PLO8, but aggression is calculated the same way. I think for this stat to be utilized successfully, you need to take into account how often the player sees the flop as a baseline for what types of hands your opponent likely has.

Beyond that, it gives you an idea of what strategies are most likely to succeed against a player.

Don't bluff twice against a low aggression players generally, if he called you once, he'll call you again. Play your good hands fast against low agression players.

Do slow play and re-raise aggressive players. Sometimes a second bluff is needed to take down a pot.

A re-raise from a non-aggressive player means you are beaten, from an aggressive player you may have to consider calling.

etc. etc.

[MyMindIsGoing]

It was no flame, I just think it sux when people have that "I am right, you are wrong, no point even tanking more about it.".

[Supern]

[ QUOTE ]
Beyond that, it gives you an idea of what strategies are most likely to succeed against a player.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is very dangerous. I have several very loose players that bluffs quite a bit and have an aggression factor of around 0.6.

So if you don't have any notes on him and he bets you look at the agg and say: "he must have something".

Some players are betting semibluffs and bluffs and calling och checking their real hands.

It seems like the Agg factor works quite bad for loose players (VPIP 30+).

What about using the following stats instead and look at the W$SD%?
* "Bet/raised/ch-raised" for each street to see if he is dangerous when betting. This stat includes raises as well which is bad but it gives you a clue.

* "Just called" for each street to see if he if he is dangerous when calling.

[OrianasDaad]

The best way is via observation. Watch what they bet and call with, and take copious amounts of notes.

K_C is correct about the inherent inaccuracy of aggression factor, and does a good job of explaining why. I won't elaborate, and probably couldn't improve upon what he said.

I will note that I often see moves from players that their stats don't support. I watched a 70/0/.3 check-raise a LAG with an OESD today, and if I am observing closely, find that these anamolous situations fairly frequently.

I've been lax in my note taking requirements, but since I've moved down to one table (and loving it!), I make at least one note on a player for every showdown. It's not long before I've got notes on everyone at a table, and usually not much longer after that I have really good notes on everybody at a table.

These notes are usually supported by statistical reads, but sometimes they aren't. It's these differences that allow you a better chance to make correct decisions at the table.