Redefining Aggression - PokerAce Hud

[Soh]

How about re-raising?
Re-raising should be more aggressive than raising.

Soh

ps ...I didn't read all the posts.

[MaxPower]

I am glad you are doing this. I would prefer to just get the bet+raise% for each street and the fold% for each street.

Other stats I would like to see is W$SD when called the river and W$SD when bet the river.

[w_alloy]

I like it. There is an alluring simplicity to it. But I think you should make a few small modifications: I think raises (both check and normal), 3 bets, and caps should all be weighted slightly. I was thinking maybe 1.2 for raises, 1.35 for 3 bets, and 1.5 for caps. I think the concern that percents might get over 100 is mute; it is a good indicator if they are as such.

Also, your formula doesnt take into account that cehcking behind 3 times is MORE passive then calling 3 times. I think the solution to this is including checking in the denominator *only when you are closing the action*.

Edit to add: I also think calling (and checking behind) should be valued higher then folding. I think a 1:2 ratio is a bit too strong however. Maybe 1.2 for calling , 1.0 for checking behind, and .8 for folding.

[Dan Mezick]

Check raise is not really 100% aggressive. It is often a probing manuever designed to see where you are (typically after the flop) and can accomplish certain other goals, like getting a free card (etc). The check raise is often used as a semi-defensive play early in the hand, such as when you hold 2nd pair after the flop and need to better define your opponents likely holding.

Consequently check-raising may not really apply here. As the final point, I notice that Doyle, arguably the definitive aggressive player, states in SS1.0 that he 'does not like' the check-raise, mainly because the opponent can GET AWAY when you use it.

Is the check-raise 100% indicative of pure aggression?

Probably not.

[Hoopster81]

Yes, I think you are really onto something

[Mendacious]

I think you could easily weight raising more than betting, and check raising more than both. I would not use folding at all. I think calling is the best denominator. Also, event though it is less than ideal, I think you want something that works across all games, Limit, PL and NL.

Thx. for asking, and good luck.

[SlantNGo]

I agree. Don't worry about folding. Went to Showdown % is already a good indicator of how well you can push Villain out of the pot. Aggression Factor should be used in conjunction with WtSD% to narrow down Villain's holdings. Including folding in that equation is redundant IMO.

[excession]

'Went to Showdown % is already a good indicator of how well you can push'

WtSD% is OK but there are two reasons why a hand doesn't get to showdown - villain may be very aggro and so a lot of his hands end with his big bets/re-rasies on turn/river or villain may fold a lot.

You need a separate criterion for 'weakness' (or propensity to fold) as a cross-check to see how 'safe' it is to push.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. Don't worry about folding. Went to Showdown % is already a good indicator of how well you can push Villain out of the pot. Aggression Factor should be used in conjunction with WtSD% to narrow down Villain's holdings. Including folding in that equation is redundant IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the "Folded to a bet" street by street stat to be one of the more useful ones. Combined with the WTSD and W$SD %, you can get a pretty decent idea of how to play that specfic opponent.

I am not adverse to changing the the way aggression is presented, but I think right now between the "street by street aggression", "street by street folding", and WTSD/W$SD, that a pretty accurate picture of a player can be created within 100-200 hands.

[Zygote]

I love your software, but am stuck without when i play on the PRIMA network. Any chances this site might one day be supported?

I look foward to all new improvements, and thank you for your time.