SLAP vs TAG

however. the man say he have with
and slap him is lagging?? i am hate
sec ret codes you are guys using and not
to in clude new-mem ber!!!!! I not like eet her!!

[ QUOTE ]
excellent, so its definatly....

[/ QUOTE ]

to somewhat echo what one of the posters above wrote, i don't think you should play every hand with a "trying to produce nice pokertracker stats" mentality. with a hand like this, your main focus is trying to extract as much as possible and if checking helps you do that, then check. the way i try to adjust is on an overall, and not hand by hand basis. for instance, after reviewing my aggression stats, i want to improve my preflop aggression, so i make a concerted effort not to limp preflop from early position, unless i plan to checkraise a preflop raise or now i raise hands i previously would have limped with in late position.

i don't think checking a monster flop is going to lead to an overall lower post flop aggressive game because you're not going to be flopping quads or the nuts as often as you'll be missing flops.

[rikz]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't have a chance to look at how pokertracker defines SLAP exactly, but from memory, i think it's semi loose (before the flop) aggressive (after the flop) passive (overall, including preflop). which makes sense with the way i play.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "SLA" part is preflop. Semi-Loose meaning you see more than 20% of your hands (using default #s) but less than some higher rate (like 30% or something, I can't remember where LAG starts). The "P" is for calling more often post flop than betting or raising. It is the opposite of what you indicate in your quote, above.

Anyway, if that's what you want to do (to OP), then just bet and raise more than you call. This can be tough because with this approach (if you're not so good with hand reading, like me at the moment) you can very easily win a lot of small pots, lose a lot of medium sized-pots, fold a lot of marginal hands that would have won if you had called them down, and win about the same number of monster pots as playing more passively post-flop. On the other hand, this TAG style post flop is intimitating to an opponent, and can often give you better information more cheaply than calling someone down. It is also possible that this style, played well, can generate more well-disguised monster pots becaue a TAG can get away with looking like he's playing an overpair from LP for a raise while holding 78s, flop a straight, and get all-in versus a set who thinks the TAG is holding onto aces or kings with white knuckles. The TAG might also get more action from passive post flop players if he shows down a couple of cases in which he was betting his draws like he had a made hand (as opposed to calling or folding with a draw), but then changes gears for a while betting with the goods instead of draws.

Here's an example of SLAP versus TAG style in action. Let's say you raise AK preflop in LP, the flop is A72r, and the SB who called preflop bets into you for 1/2 pot, then you are probably way ahead (AQ or AJ, for example) or way behind (77 or 22 or even a loose A7s). Do you call the 1/2 pot bet, call the turn and call the river? Or, do you pop that probe bet up to 1.5 times the size of the original pot (2x the min raise, or maybe more depending on stack sizes) to see what happens? SLAP play would be inclined to call (call the probe bet, call a turn bet, then call the river, and be out for maybe 3 or 4 times the size of the original pot if he was way behind, but win a nice pot if he was way ahead). TAG play would be inclined to pop that probe bet a good amount and then take it from there - i.e. check behind on the turn if villain calls the raise then checks the turn, or fold if villain calls the raise and pots the turn, or fold if villain pushes preflop (out only 1.5 to 2 times the size of the original pot before folding), or just win the pot right ther because villain folds his JJ and gives up after his probe bet fails to fold you out - the point is that hero must make a read on each street post flop and either raise, push, check, or fold - and that's it...only on rare occaisions (i.e. the ONLY hand that calls a raise on the river is one that has you beat, etc) would you be inclined to just call post flop trying to play uber-TAG.

Thanks albert, i think that was exactly what i was looking for!. (ive re-read it 5 times at least)

The QQ hand is just an extreme example.

Im looking at pre/flop play in detail and see the situations you are describing but calling down with AQ/AJ .. i would allways raise/re-raise the AK but slow down and call to re-raise or resistance.

Im clearly not ready to make all the plays you explain, all of the time!!

I see now i have a long way to go to get to TAG, but have added a few new moves which are working well so far, i guess i just keep adding good things, and check where it is leading me. My flop aggression has improved over my last few sessions and i think this is a clear positive.

i finally had a chance to read the pokertracker definition and along with the other explanations here, i think i have it straight now. SLA=semi-loose aggressive preflop, P=passive overall aggresion (including preflop aggression). so, what i've learned is, the "A" in SLA is strictly a function of preflop raise percentage and the "P" is a function of (bet+raise/call) overall, on all streets. i was equating them both to the aggression factor calculation.

[motorholdem]

Hi folks

Coorect me if I'm wrong, and I alpologize if this has already been said, but couldn't you go from a SLAP (which I am) to TAG simpy by tightening your pre-flop startting reuirements.

By doing this, you will have better holdings and consequently will be able to legitimately be more agressive post-flop. Would'nt one take care of the other?

I mean there is a reason that we don't see too many SLAGs - it's tough to be semi-loose and aggressive and stcik around too long unless you have an awesome post-flop game.

[rikz]

[ QUOTE ]
but couldn't you go from a SLAP (which I am) to TAG simpy by tightening your pre-flop startting reuirements.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It all depends on your syle. If, overall, you call more than you bet+raise, then you will get that "P" for total aggression no matter how much you tighten up preflop.

That aggression number is just a ratio of (bet+raise)/call. Checking and folding are neutral. So, a guy that calls more overall than he bets or raises whenever he isn't checking or folding, then that guy is labeled "passive" overall. If he calls less than he bets or raises when he isn't checking or folding, then that guy is "aggressive" overall.

As for tightening up preflop leading to more aggression on later streets, that's not necessarily true. On the SSNLHE board there are a lot of cases where a TPTK or overpair wants to "control the size of the pot" in order to be able to make better decisions on later streets regarding how strong he thinks villain might be - without losing his stack to a set or 2-pair in the process. For example, AA raises preflop, continuation bets the flop, then what? If he's up against a set or two pair, does he just keep doing all the betting for villain? Does he check the turn and value bet the river? Every hand is different, but it is very possible that better starting hands could call for more aggressive on early streets, but frequently call for more passive play on later streets.

The aggression numbers are more effected by your style in answering these questions:

Do you continuation bet when you miss the flop more than you check/fold or check/call (i.e. you have TT on a KJ7 flop, or you have AK on a 942 flop, etc.)? It is obviously more aggressive to bet, but at some loose/passive tables, that might be chip spewing. At a weak-tight table, this is probably +EV.

Do you more often call or raise when a person in EP who had called your preflop raise (you have KK) leads into you on the flop for 3/4 pot?

Do you bet or raise with draws more often than you call with draws?

Do you bet or raise with strong flops (sets and two-pairs) more often than you try to slow play/cold call with sets and two-pairs? Since a set is not a monster (like flopping quads that will cripple a deck and require a slow play), a set or two-pair can be played fast or slow depending on the villain and the situation, but an "aggressive" player will bet or raise with those more than a "passive" player might not bet or raise until the river in order to try suck out more money while taking the risk that villain might outdraw on later streets without having to pay more for that priveledge.

It really boils down to this: when facing a decision, especially post-flop, are you more inclined to check/call than you are to bet, raise, or fold? If so, then you play mostly "passive" poker. If not, then you play mostly "aggressive" poker.

[ QUOTE ]
Hi folks

I mean there is a reason that we don't see too many SLAGs - it's tough to be semi-loose and aggressive and stcik around too long unless you have an awesome post-flop game.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess i must have an awesome post flop game :-)