Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?

[Noo Yawk]

[ QUOTE ]
"This is especially crucial as one move up in stakes and a larger percentage of the pots are won not by having the best hand on the river but by having the only hand before the river."

maybe it was a misperception on my part, but it seemed like there was a dip in the number of showdowns around the 20-40/40-80 level but then that table showdown percentage went back up as i played higher. does that make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually have a theory about this. I found that the 20-40 to 40-80 level games are the first level of pyschololgical barrier games, where people can lose thousands, rather than hundreds fairly easy, causing them to play weak-tight. The ones that get used to it, take advantage and beat the crud out of these players. When they move up, they refuse to fold as they believe everyone's trying to bully them the same way. Just an opinion I've formed while I was bored. Maybe it has some merit, maybe not.

[mike l.]

.

[sweetjazz]

It's not limited to preflop. The more aggressive a game is, the bigger the swings of short term luck will be. Imagine you have Jh Jd and your very LAG opponent has 9c 8c and after the turn is Jc Tc 3s 2s. Let's say that every street has been capped to this point. Look at how big of a swing things take based on whether the river is the 7h or the 6h.

The short-term luck factor is both good and bad. It no doubt convinces a lot of losing players that they are really winners who have gotten unlucky somehow. They attribute the times of short-term good luck to their skillful play, while blaming times of short-term bad luck on luck alone (even though their decisions were far from optimal). On the other hand, it means that a winning player needs a bigger bankroll to withstand the short-term fluctuations and more psychological strength to avoid conflating short-term results (good or bad) and long-term winning strategies.

I don't believe that a higher luck factor is necessarily correlated to a decrease in skill. I think you are biased to seeing folding in a medium pot as a major skill in limit HE. In limit HE, folding moderately strong hands is not the key skill to the game. (That is a much more important skill in no-limit HE.)

More aggressive games require more skill because players must make more decisions, and consequently are in greater danger of making more mistakes that will cost them in the long-run. More aggressive games also generally tend to lower the quality of hand that should be shown down, but it still takes a lot of skill in applying this general principle in concrete situations. You will always come across hands where you have a tough decision, and making better decisions in these situations can give you an edge. Also, there are many times when the decision is very clear but counterintuitive; only by careful study of the game and the theory behind it can a correct decision be made. Finally, the sheer number of variables involved in a poker hand (which increase as players become more aggressive and ways are needed to distinguish between different styles of aggression) as well as the necessity of estimating these quantities with incomplete information available makes poker a challenging game that requires skill, no matter how bloated the pots get.

In summary, I agree that the short-term luck factor does increase in aggressive games. But I also believe that skill plays a very large role in these games. The way that these two claims are reconciled is that it takes longer for skill to make itself apparent and separate winners from losers, but because of the skill needed in the game, it will definitely happen in the long run.

[Mempho]

First of all, sorry I took so long to get back to you. I had a busy, busy weekend.

[ QUOTE ]


BTW, when I plugged in the cards into Twodimes, it showed Ad-Ks winning 50.92% against Jd-9d and Ah-Jh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I ran it throught PokerStove...I included the dead cards since we knew the entire deal here.



[ QUOTE ]
Your analysis indicates what percentage of the time you will win with the best cards. It doesn't indicate how many times you can win without the best cards; whatever that percentage is, it will be a much higher, one would think, without the two players behind you. The flop will miss everybody more often with just three of you and you'll be more confident betting it when they check to you than you will be with two others still to act behind you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Granted...there is no doubt that the PFR gives you postflop leverage to steal some pots that are not mathematically yours. I do not know the average win% on a continuation bet (TAG stats) with AK. Our win percentage on the bluff against two opponents is considerable, but it is certainly not going to be a huge percentage. Of course, our bluff percentage on a 5-handed flop drops exponentially...we have virtually no chance of winning uncontested. I'm sure that you will agree that like everything in poker, there is a tradeoff here. You know that AK has a lot more postflop options unraised, of course. Also, when you are outflopped, it is very easy to get away from.

Some basic flops with AK are:

You flop TPTK and are not extremely vulnerable such as a flop of A 9 2 rainbow

You flop TPTK and are vulnerable such as a 2-flush of A 9 2

You flop TPTK and are extremely vulnerable such as a 2-flush of AJT

You flop a monster such as AKK or QJT

You whiff completely such as 9 8 5

You whiff but you've got a nice draw such as Q J x rainbow or J x x monotone where you have the ace of trump.

You flop TPTK and are losing with little hope of winning (up against a set or something like that)

You flop TPTK and are losing but have a decent draw such as someone flopping bottom 2 pair (where you have the 5 outer plus some counterfeit out potential that can be picked up on the turn).

If you flop a hand with AK in an unraised pot, you can cause opponents to make some huge flop and turn mistakes even if they are on good draws. It is more difficult to do this if you are the PFR (maniacs are an exception).

If you miss the flop with AK, you can muck it quickly in an unraised pot if it becomes immediately clear that you are beaten.

If you're up against a set with TPTK...you're going to lose either way.


Anyway, I'm not advocating not raising with AK at all. I'm just stating that not everything is as clear cut as it may seem. Poker can be played from varying angles of attack and there are times when you are better off taking the opposite of the textbook approach. I nearly always raise with AK...but there are situations where it may be clearly better to call, especially if the following conditions are met:

a) You have almost no fold equity...i.e., players have already entered the pot and one of them is almost sure to see you to the showdown
b) The players yet to act behind you will play hands that you will beat to a pulp when you both connect. This turns AK into more of an implied odds hand.
c) It could have metagame benfits.

That said, these situations are difficult to judge and you could almost never be wrong in making the opening raise with AK.

Of course, the point of this post was in relation to preflop aggression. I think that AK is pretty much an automatic raising hand preflop. Of course, we know that many of the hands raised in today's midlimit online games are not nearly as good as AK.

The main hypothesis of my post was this:

If you get into a game that is so aggressive that it requires you to put in a lot of money with marginal hands preflop, you are going to have higher variance outcomes and if you are a good postflop player, it will lower your expectation. The only leverage you have is to get your opponents to lay down incorrectly. This is often expensive and high variance. It does work, however. More often, though, your postflop reading skills are neutralized in the same way that a no-limit expert's postflop skill is nullified by "sliders" in tournament play.

So, how important is preflop passivity in relation to the following variables?

1) VPIP
2) Avg. Pot Size
3) Passivity

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not limited to preflop. The more aggressive a game is, the bigger the swings of short term luck will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed


[ QUOTE ]
The short-term luck factor is both good and bad. It no doubt convinces a lot of losing players that they are really winners who have gotten unlucky somehow. They attribute the times of short-term good luck to their skillful play, while blaming times of short-term bad luck on luck alone (even though their decisions were far from optimal). On the other hand, it means that a winning player needs a bigger bankroll to withstand the short-term fluctuations and more psychological strength to avoid conflating short-term results (good or bad) and long-term winning strategies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that a higher luck factor is necessarily correlated to a decrease in skill. I think you are biased to seeing folding in a medium pot as a major skill in limit HE. In limit HE, folding moderately strong hands is not the key skill to the game. (That is a much more important skill in no-limit HE.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well....like I said in the example...we couldn't fold in that spot because of the pot size even though we were 90% sure we were beaten. I think what you mean to say is that it is not important in games with relatively large pots...which aggressive games normally have postflop. I think good postflop players are always aware of the mistake of laying down incorrectly. If someone doesn't understand this, he is not a good postflop player. I have seen many people, however, lay down just to save a bet or two...which is generally bad policy on its own merits. I think you are arguing that "knowing when to stay in" is a skill. I agree with that. Many players basically play their entire game preflop, however. When they see the flop only with correct values in aggressive games, it becomes difficult to create mistakes if they are playing no-fold 'em in big pots. How many times have you nailed the someone's hand exactly, knew he had nothing, and still couldn't get him to fold? This generally falls into the realm of FPS because a lot of people simply don't fold...because they feel tied to the pot because of the preflop action. These people are much more common than the quick folders.

[ QUOTE ]
In summary, I agree that the short-term luck factor does increase in aggressive games. But I also believe that skill plays a very large role in these games. The way that these two claims are reconciled is that it takes longer for skill to make itself apparent and separate winners from losers, but because of the skill needed in the game, it will definitely happen in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I do think that variance is just as important as expectation, however...and sometimes more important. I do think, however, that playing in a game with fewer average bets per player allows for some extremely profitable opportunties. You can readily steal if you pick your pots, and players often make huge mistakes postflop that are easily exploited. For that reason, I think your expectation may, in fact, be higher for these games. Exceptions, of course, occur....such as when you are facing a complete maniac.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]

I basically disagree with you. Reading skill are even more valuable in big pots. You need to be even more sure of your read to lay down a hand in a big pot and it is a big mistake if you are wrong. In a small pot, you don't need to be very sure and it is not big mistake if you are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you can every get much higher than 90%. Often, 90% is still not enough certainty to make a laydown. Even when I'm "sure", I still believe in the Harrington "maxim."

[mmcd]

But if you're raising AJs in the BB after 7 people have limped in, then it will have the opposite effect on your variance.

I assume you meant AJo here. Not raising a decent suited A after 7 limpers would be borderline criminal.

[QUADS4444]

I think the big advantage of raising with AK in this situation is that if all three of you miss the flop, then your continuation bet will win the pot, bringing your win % up from the 56% stated. Whereas, it is unwise to make a continuation bet in a 5 plr limped pot. In fact your actual win % 5 handed will actually be lower that the stated 41.3% because you often mucked on the flop and don't get a chance to hit your 6 outer on turn and river.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
How many times have you nailed the someone's hand exactly, knew he had nothing, and still couldn't get him to fold? This generally falls into the realm of FPS because a lot of people simply don't fold...because they feel tied to the pot because of the preflop action. These people are much more common than the quick folders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a bit skeptical about knowing with certainty that your opponent has nothing, but supposing we did, there is still plenty of opportunity for skill to come in. The skill doesn't come in trying to keep coming over the top with worse rags, but rather in value betting weak hands that wouldn't be value bet otherwise.

In big bloated pots, the main skill is value betting and controlling the number of bets that go into the pot before showdown. This is just a different skill than pushing tight players off missed hands by raising raggedy boards or scary boards in relatively small pots. In a tight game, it makes to semi-bluff raise more often with draws. In loose wild games where the pots become bloated, it often makes sense to play draws passively and look for ways to extract the maximum when you hit. (A key exception is bloating the pot on the flop if your equity edge is big enough.)

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depending on the situation, raising can either lower or increase the 'luck' factor. Like Andyfox says, if it's used to thin the field and increase your chance of winning a pot (albeit a smaller pot), it can reduce your variance.

But if you're raising AJs in the BB after 7 people have limped in, then it will have the opposite effect on your variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I challenge this assertion. When you raise AJs in the BB after 7 people limp in you have an equity edge. As your equity increases, your variance isn't as negative. For example win rate 5, variance 10 = swings from -5 to 15. win rate 15, variance 10 = swings from 5 to 25. This is just an example of how increasing your win rate makes your variance less noticable, these numbers do not represent anything real.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect, because pot equity is a proportion of the pot, not a fixed number. For example, if your equity is .4, the variance will be .4*(1-.4), or .24. Playing an 8SB pot preflop, where you have .4 equity, has EV of 2.2SBs[3.2 pot share -1sb invested], with a Variance of 1.92SBs. Doubling the pot by raising doubles your expected value, to 4.4SBs, but also doubles your variance, to 2.84SBs.