Using Aggression In No Limit Hold Em

[PuppyFridayYall]

Since they deleted my post at high stakes I'd like to put it here where it won't get terrorized. SERIOUS REPLIES ONLY PLEASE.

I think that some people have the tendency to get too boggled down with thinking they have to be aggressive in order to win at this game. Really the premise is simple you get five cards face down and your two hole cards and the person to make the best five card hand wins. The point I'm trying to make and that I have come to realize is that it IS NOT rocket science. This game CAN be beaten and I am not sure that being overly aggressive in the game is how it can be beat. Sure you want to use aggression to your advantage if your opponent is a folder but other than that you just want to protect your hand and play it as best you know how. Sometimes aggression fits into this formula and sometimes it does not. I see too many people going all in with trips and only to be getting called by the man with the full house to make aggression wise all the time because the point IS you need to do it only in certain circumstances to make poker profitable, just some thoughts.

Jake :- )

[boycalledroy]

I'll felt disguised trips every single time. I'll win at low limits more than I'll lose.

NLHE _is_ position and aggression.

[sputum]

Play good. Have reasons for your actions. Look at the possibilities and the options available to you and pick the best ones.
Maybe it's different in high stakes /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[losingdonkey]

this is almost as good as your "why are all people not christians" thread

[Sean Fraley]

Aggression has more benefits to it than just folding opponents.

First of all, it makes it more difficult to determine your hand range by hiding the monsters in a sea of aggression. This is a better tactic than playing you big hands weakly, as it gets money in the pot on a regular basis. With aggression, your opponents have to expend a great deal of effort separating the signal from the noise.

Secondly, there are very real psychological effects of constantly putting your opponents in situations where they have to accept an above average level of risk every time the get in a hand with you. This isn't just something you encounter in poker, but in areas such as military tactics and business negotiations. Human beings in general are much more likely to submit to the demands and wishes of an aggressive opponent who puts thing they value at risk than they are an opponent who tries to passively manipulate them into a desired course of action. In addition, when your average person stands up to a highly aggressive opponent, it is more often than not done in a less than optimal and well thought out fashion. In poker, this results in opponents making stands when they are at a disadvantage.

[brainfreeze0]

Sean Fraley, that was a really interesting and informative reply and after thinking about it I have to conclude that you are absolutely correct in your psychological approach to the game...

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
this is almost as good as your "why are all people not christians" thread

[/ QUOTE ]

wow I had to go and read that thread - tempting as it was it demonstrates that OP is just a troll so I kept my "Christians" response to myself...

[clownslayer2]

meh....agression is dope. push all in w/ bluffs.

[EMc]

That HSNL thread was funny. You got hte responses a post of this type gets. This really isnt helpful and personally I think its just wrong.