[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Umm, aggression factor is a combination of raising and betting, not betting and calling, so I agree with the second sentence (more folds = less calls = higher aggression), but don't understand the first (aggression factor is betting and calling).

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify: Aggression factor as the ratio of (bets/raises) to (calls) depends on both categories. So what I meant was that seeing high AF does not mean that villain value bets/raises at every possible instance. It could also mean that he's folding lots (instead of calling), so that when he's in a hand, he's got a pretty decent one, which he sometimes raises and sometimes calls. If he would raise AQ/KQ and just call with QJ, that would make a 2 AF.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why you only chose those three hands as an example because he'll call with many draws, too. This means he's even more likely to bet a Q, since he has to to compensate for calling the draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not mean to imply that these would be the only combination of hands that he would bet or call with. I'm simply pointing out that there could be hands that beat yours that he would not raise, especially if villain's AF were artificially bloated by weak-tight play (folding too much).

I think it's an absurd idea to try to divide his hand range into thirds and define the bottom third of his range to be the "calling" hands and the top two thirds to be the "raising" hands. The mixed AF is too vague to be read that way.