I think this concept as it relates to entire play is hugely known. Can it be”aggression” profitable? Does it pay to be aggressive?
A lot of players would immediately say yes. But I say. . .well, kind of. I think there is a far larger picture. There is fantastic aggression and aggression that is poor. Aggression simply for the sake of aggression, while likely rewarding in spurts, I don’t think can be EV in the long run. Actually these types of players, players who are just competitive for the sake of this (let us call them”Aggressive-BAD”) really are easy to overcome I think.
I think most players would scr888 agree that passive poker is your least profitable playing style possible. If you’re consistently soft playing both palms, then you’re obviously not maximizing your overall value. And if it’s always your urge to reach showdown assured you have the very best hand, then you are missing one weapon on your gambling arsenal: bluffing. Thus passives will also be limited in how they can win. Put simply: passive=awful. Whenever you are always calling and calling and you only raise whenever you’ve got the nuts, then you’ll never be profitable in the future. It’s hopeless. You are also very simple to overcome; any decent player is merely likely to appreciate bet you to departure and fold into your increases.
Have you ever sat at a mostly tight-passive dining table and watched that a GOOD, competitive player absolutely steamroll everyone? It’s obviously one of my favorite events to observe. You watch these passive players consistently limp in or make chintzy raises and only always secure re-jacked or out played when they have been brazen enough to predict Preflop. Then they mumble to themselves when they feel forced to muck. They hope and hope that if they can’t take action, then one of the passive-bad cohorts are going to have a enormous weed off the good, aggressive player. Only problem isthat their traps don’t perform, their bluffs don’t work; only works! And this player continues to play aggressively, so bluffing in areas where he could show up with creature hands, and also value bets in spots where he could wind up with air. He also balances his ranges well and poses a lot of issues both pre and post-flop.
He supplies you headaches at the desk. He allows you to need to quit trades forever. He is the guy you think is just blessed, only running good. He’s the guy you desperately need to trap, damn it! But you never, and also you wont.
Basically: Aggression + purpose=Great. Very good.
However, what about those players who learned aggression in and of it self is good, but do not apply the idea well whatsoever? Nevertheless they bet and raise in spots that are inconsistent with any kind of strong hand. They are competitive just with regard to being competitive. Their gambling lines generally do not make any sense, so savvy players adapt fast by calling, raising, and sometimes even re-raising light. In addition, they are easy to trap, because they over play hands and gamble and raise in areas where it’s quite obvious they cannot be winning. Spend plenty of time with this particular player and he or she will exhibit exactly the very same sort of gambling pattern repeatedly and repeatedly. As an example, I was playing heads up limit with an”Aggressive-BAD” one other time. After about 10 hands, I pointed out this player always always always checked the flop and then bet the turn without fail. What an easy modification to make to understand that all I had to do would be widen my check raise range on the turn against this specific particular player. Even smallest pair made me convinced enough to double big bet on Fourth Street.
So what player profile do you think you fit under? Passive-bad, Aggressive-bad, or even Aggressive-good? What works (and fails ) for you personally? Could you think about several ways it is possible to start to combat all of three playing fashions? Hopefully this entry will likely lose a little light onto the”Aggression” theory because it relates to poker as well as make you believe just a little more about your own aggression level at the desk.