Re: 5/10 - Stack-a-donk or Fold?
 

[ QUOTE ]
80/10/1.5 is insanely aggressive. He pots the turn with anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was the funniest I have read in a long time.. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: 5/10 - Stack-a-donk or Fold?
 

I have to agree with Jay here. stack it.

Re: 5/10 - Stack-a-donk or Fold?
 

[ QUOTE ]


80/10/1.5 is insanely aggressive. He pots the turn with anything. if anything his big turn bet makes me even more secure we are ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is 80/10/1.5 insanely aggressive?? to me it looks like a passive fish who likes to see flops with any 2.

edit: oh. am being leveled...

Re: 5/10 - Stack-a-donk or Fold?
 

lol hes not levelling.

Re: 5/10 - Stack-a-donk or Fold?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


80/10/1.5 is insanely aggressive. He pots the turn with anything. if anything his big turn bet makes me even more secure we are ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is 80/10/1.5 insanely aggressive?? to me it looks like a passive fish who likes to see flops with any 2.

edit: oh. am being leveled...

[/ QUOTE ]

1.5 AF for an 80 vpip is ridiculously aggressive, you have to understand that AF's are all relative to your vpip/pfr. If you play 15/12, a 1.5 AF is very passive. If you play 80% of your hands, now 1.5 AF is through the roof in aggression.

Re: 5/10 - Stack-a-donk or Fold?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


80/10/1.5 is insanely aggressive. He pots the turn with anything. if anything his big turn bet makes me even more secure we are ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is 80/10/1.5 insanely aggressive?? to me it looks like a passive fish who likes to see flops with any 2.

edit: oh. am being leveled...

[/ QUOTE ]

1.5 AF for an 80 vpip is ridiculously aggressive, you have to understand that AF's are all relative to your vpip/pfr. If you play 15/12, a 1.5 AF is very passive. If you play 80% of your hands, now 1.5 AF is through the roof in aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you explain what you mean more? the aggression number doesn't include preflop, right?

Re: 5/10 - Stack-a-donk or Fold?
 

[ QUOTE ]
can you explain what you mean more? the aggression number doesn't include preflop, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
I really hope I am not being levelled here.

The numbers do not include preflop. What he is referring to, I believe, is that villain is betting with VERY marginal holdings. If he brings ~80% of his hands to the flop, and then bets 1.5 times as often as he calls, he is obviously betting some very weak hands. If you compare this to someone who only brings the top 15% of his hands to a flop, and then bets with the same frequency, he is obviously calling/checking with a lot stronger holdings than the first villain.

Re: 5/10 - Stack-a-donk or Fold?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can you explain what you mean more? the aggression number doesn't include preflop, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
I really hope I am not being levelled here.

The numbers do not include preflop. What he is referring to, I believe, is that villain is betting with VERY marginal holdings. If he brings ~80% of his hands to the flop, and then bets 1.5 times as often as he calls, he is obviously betting some very weak hands. If you compare this to someone who only brings the top 15% of his hands to a flop, and then bets with the same frequency, he is obviously calling/checking with a lot stronger holdings than the first villain.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, you're not being leveled.

[ QUOTE ]
If he brings ~80% of his hands to the flop, and then bets 1.5 times as often as he calls, he is obviously betting some very weak hands

[/ QUOTE ]

how do we know this? he might be betting 3% of flops and calling 2%, or he might be betting 60% and calling 40%. we don't know if he's betting weak hands.

this is why i think aggro factor would be more useful if it stayed broken up between betting and calling instead of dividing one by the other.

Re: 5/10 - Stack-a-donk or Fold?
 

[ QUOTE ]
how do we know this? he might be betting 3% of flops and calling 2%, or he might be betting 60% and calling 40%. we don't know if he's betting weak hands.

this is why i think aggro factor would be more useful if it stayed broken up between betting and calling instead of dividing one by the other.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your right, this is very possible. I thought of this while typing, but didn't elaborate. Generally, opponents like this aren't seeing 80% of flops, but folding on 90% of them. You are right, though, we don't have all the information necessary here to reach either conclusion with a high level of confidence. Until I am proven otherwise, I assume a villain like this is betting some very marginal hands.

I also agree that the raise/call numbers would be more valuable than the number we are given.