Be aggressive - overrated?
OK, I don't know where this post is going, just some random musing on my part I guess. So as I've progressed through various limits and generally found the games getting more and more aggressive and in general tougher, I've recently become much more passive in many of my lines. I begin to wonder if I'm just finding excuses to play weak, or if I actually know what I'm doing.
A lot of us have read SSHE and a lot of us know we should endlessly be value betting, raising our draws, protecting pots, etc...except SSHE is targetted largely for excessively loose-passive games, which aren't always in ample abundance online.
So, against LAGs and TAGs a lot more I've seen more opportunities for getting value from hands by simply check-calling, rather than raising or betting out. In general, with aggressive opponents I see a lot more opportunity for getting value by inducing bluffs than by value betting mediocre holdings.
Note: That's not to say there aren't times to genuinely be aggressive with hands you know are favourites, or that there aren't times where you shouldn't be value betting mediocre hands, it just tends to be situation dependant.
My only worry is that I'm turning into one of those old weak-tight nits you see in casinos that constantly check-call top pair, etc (I don't really think this is the case).
So, am I crazy, or has anyone else come to the realization that you don't ALWAYS have to be aggressive just for the sake of being aggressive?
A lot of us have read SSHE and a lot of us know we should endlessly be value betting, raising our draws, protecting pots, etc...except SSHE is targetted largely for excessively loose-passive games, which aren't always in ample abundance online.
So, against LAGs and TAGs a lot more I've seen more opportunities for getting value from hands by simply check-calling, rather than raising or betting out. In general, with aggressive opponents I see a lot more opportunity for getting value by inducing bluffs than by value betting mediocre holdings.
Note: That's not to say there aren't times to genuinely be aggressive with hands you know are favourites, or that there aren't times where you shouldn't be value betting mediocre hands, it just tends to be situation dependant.
My only worry is that I'm turning into one of those old weak-tight nits you see in casinos that constantly check-call top pair, etc (I don't really think this is the case).
So, am I crazy, or has anyone else come to the realization that you don't ALWAYS have to be aggressive just for the sake of being aggressive?
Comments
Seriously though I agree with you. This past trip to Vegas I found the tournies in general much more aggressive. The old rope a dope works great against the agro young bucks looking to push you off pots.... Although ya gotta read the table and know when to turn it up a notch.... I think the most successful style is being able to adapt to opponents and stage of a tourney...
Cash games are a different animal and I don't feel competent enough to really comment on them...
I think what you are seeing is that the higher level players have all shifted their games to the aggressive side from when it used to be passive. I expected stuff like this to happen when too much of the same information is passed around, it reaches a larger audience and becomes a part of standard play.
SSHE was written to beat passive games. It doesn't give any advice to aggressive games other than to tighten up. So I expect the 'next poker renessiance" to advocate more showdowns in smaller pots. Less 3-betting and capping with top pair, more deciet and slowplaying.
micr0be and I had a similar discussion on our way to Brantford. It was about how we felt we played hands wrong when we didn't take the lead from the flop..
Anyway, I think yer on the right track and you are just adjusting to the games as they are today. Sounds like good thinking to me.
For example, 4-5 people left, medium stacked, you are often inclined to open raise (steal) early position with A5, KQ etc, and I more often then not avoid this. I don't take too many chances unless the blinds are rocks. I've tried out a looser wilder style and it just doesn't work as well as playing like a ROCK, over the 900 or so SNG's I've played. In general the mindset I have is wait your way to the money, wait for cards until you have chips, or are ITM and then start playing poker. Boring yes, but it works.
I have noticed the biggest change in general style of play occurs when you go from the 33's to the 55's where there are a lot more tight players. I noticed no real major difference from 5.50 to 33, but in general the 55's are much tighter. I haven't made any modifications yet at that level, and done well, hoiwever I haven't played many yet, and try to play mostly during weekends when things are a little wilder.
As a general rule, I try to target two types of players, the loose wild bad players we all love, and the tight multi-tablers who are predictable. That is where I make any moves I do make. if the guy is playing many tables, I will steal from him 10 X as much as a I would a normal player.
There is usually at least one fish or maniac in the table, so with the blinds at 25/50, instead of playing like a rock/mouse, I will try to limp in with hands that have good implied odds, especially in late position. When a player gets eliminated and the blinds rise to 50/100, I switch to a tight-aggressive style. When there are four players left and the blinds at 150/300 (average M of 13), I WOULD raise/steal in any position with any Ace or KT+, unlike Tie Twist. If I have less than an average stack/M, I use a push-or-fold, play-for-first-place strategy. Most of the time when I get eliminated, it is because a loose player calls my favoured all-in and I get outdrawn.
I don't recall ever finishing last, but so far I have only one first and one top 2 prize split. Third or 4th place is my most frequent finish, just out of the money.
Does anybody else here use the SNG $EV strategies such as Independent Chip Model (ICM), Dan Harrington or Malmuth-Harville formula? I am wondering if this is the correct forum to have detailed discussions of ICM and other complicated math-based strategies.
Do you understand that anything Scoob says about Limit ring doesn't really apply to NL SnGs? In NL, I think the agressor will always be the king due to pot size control.
Do you understand that that post doesn't specify "limit" poker or "no-limit" poker?
Maybe SSHE implies limit poker, but I have no idea what SSHE stands for and what that book is about.
Do you understand that?
I'm going to make dinner now. Do you understand what dinner is?
SSHE is Small Stakes Hold'em written by miller, sklanksy and malmuth.
This book discusses LIMIT. and Yes I know what dinner is as I"m cooking it now
I've noticed the same thing and I check call down if the table seems to be hyper aggressive. I will play uber aggressive in position but if I get out of position I don't want to get into a raising war with another player. To many times I lead out on the turn to watch raise or re raise come from those in position (or at least better position than me). I find it funny that my 2 pair gets raised then re raised by the straight draw and the flush draw. Depending on the players I just call, and yes even make the crying call on the end when the last heart comes out and I know one of them has hit the flush.
If you really think that you can talk strategy for limit and no-limit in the same breath, then you are a biggest idiot than I thought.
Stick to food, you probably know more about it than poker considering you haven't even done the base-level of reading for the game.
I don't read limit poker books, since I don't play limit poker.
Is that hard to figure out?
I think my results over the past three years speak for themselves.
For a guy always drumming up trouble, you sure don't react to a little resistance very well.
He was on Raw this week!
Mark
/g2
I am ashamed to see how a Rock started all this confusion... don't worry Jeff, I can't stay mad at you
/g2
Put up or shut up. Screenshots of pokertracker un-altered please. If yer not gonna provide those, then STFU about "My result blah blah good".
I believe the point is that everyone else in the universe knew it was a limit post except you.
The difference between those guys and you is that they'll check their hands when they DON'T expect a bet coming from LP.
You can find me on Sharkscope. (same name)
And actually, I 've been winning on there for 4 years now, not three. How time flies!
It can be depending on the site played at. Obviously party and stars work better than most.
How am I to know the pasta is done if I don't throw it at the wall and see if it sticks.....
Now seriously Jeff is correct here
Apologies for not specifying that I was talking primarlily from a LHE cash game perspective (my main game). Not that some of the same concepts can't be applied to other games, as the main point was adjusting from LP games to LA/TA games, where value betting often becomes thinner and you need to either look to bluff or slowplay, and pickoff bluffs more often against aggressive opponents.
A couple points stood out for me (at the risk of maybe getting back on topic):
I find myself very much in the same spot OOP, which is typical in most blind-defending spots. Since the pots are generally smaller, I like to get to showdown cheaper with a marginal hand but often I don't know the best way to do that. Donking into the pfr I find generally just pisses off most would be blind stealers and I expect to get raised by almost any 2 cards (any draw, any pair, overs). Which of course leaves me with little to no information on my opponents holding. CRing the flop generally just folds out worse hands that have few outs to improve (A-rag, underpairs), and of course I either get 3 bet right there or smooth-called and raised on the turn by better hands (and to top it all off occaisionaly I'll get 3 bet by worse hands like draws and overcards from super-laggy opponents, so folding to the 3 bet isn't always automatic). Hence I'm often left check-calling, which as we've all been raised to be aggressive seems like a weak line (we're never giving our opponent a chance to fold those pesky overs/gutshot). But in hindsight, maybe this isn't all bad. Since the pot is smaller anyways, fighting to protect it isn't quite as important, and although we run the risk of giving free cards, super-aggressive opponents are often going to bet their worse hands (overcards, draws, underpairs) anyways hoping we'll fold.
I think this stems more from the fact that as TA players we're all ingrained that WE should be the ones taking the lead in the pot (which we often should). But sometimes I think it makes sense not to, you just have to realize who you're playing with and how you're getting value from that opponent.
It sounds like you've been playing the same games I've been playing. I am find tho that you get fewer players seeing the flop (in games as small as 2/4) and certainly being more aggressive. I'm finding being OOP a big handicap here even with a good to decent hand. Previously I'd not hesitate to cap out of the blinds with TT, now if it's 3 bet I'll just call and see what happens even if it does get capped. What I love now tho is it seems more people are defending their blinds to a blind steal, which I love when I raise from the button or cut off with TT+ or AJ+ since they put it on a random steal. It's even better when they play back at you with those hands.
Just remember to value bet the river if you think your best since I find after the turn goes check check I get called more often on the river when I bet.
Yes I agree ....
One thing I think you have to adjust to is to note that you can't limp in with small pocket pairs and middle suited connectors in early/mid position as much as the loose pre-flop suggestions from Miller's SSH ...
I find myself just about never using the Miller SSH loose game preflop suggestions online.
Online things are too tight and aggressive. (I just play the baby 1/2 to 2/4 online)
Live at Brantford I've only played a bit of 2/5 and 5/10 I have only a tiny sample size of less than 200 hours but I'm not a winning player at 2/5. The players seem to vary between god awful and tight rocks. I think I don't win at 2/5 because the rake is so high... I've been happier at 5/10 lately.
At the Brantford 5/10 SSH seems to work a lot better. There are a few pros that you have to use HEPFAP on but for the most part I just avoid the tight aggressive players and try to isolate the fish.
In no limit, either you have the best hand, and should be raising, or you have the worst hand and should be folded, or your opponent is a fool and is giving you pot and or implied odds to draw, so you should be folding. Being unsure of whether or not your top pair J kicker is good enough is not a reason to call down (although against a suspected bluffer being in a way ahead way behind situation would).