[Lawman]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to look at it in conjunction with VPIP, and as far as I know (please correct if wrong), in general the higher the VPIP/PFR, the higher the AF for the same amount of aggression, so for a villain with such a high VPIP, this is an especially low AF. (Correct?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I agreed until the conclusion. AF is a ratio of bets and raises to calls. If a player is very loose preflop and has an AF of 2, he is betting/raising twice as much as calling - but potentially with "weaker" hands.

A very tight player preflop with an AF of 2 is still betting/raising twice as much as calling but with much "stronger" hands.

Intuitively this would suggest that when players have the same AF, the one with the higher VPIP is the more aggressive. However, I'm not sure that this is entirely relevant in NL (and hence my question), because AF does not include folds and check-folds. What if you took a great relatively tight and aggressive player and made him play 50% of his starting hands but let him play his own game post flop. Would his AF be any different from his normal tighter game? I think the concept does apply in limit because the relationship between starting hand rank and subsequent action is more predictable.

I think it's relevant to this topic because many of us use PT as a mechanism for characterising players and hence putting them on a range. Thoughts anyone?