More aggro, less aggro?
 

Trying to get a feel for how the aggro level compare in L vs NL. Let me give five statements: true or false?

1) In general u should be more passive in (deep stack) NL than in L.

2) It is often a good play to chek TP/MP on the turn.

3) You can be more aggro with your pure trash hands in NL.

4) You should bet out much more often from HU OOP playing NL, instead of CR as in L.

5) It is often correct to not c-bet on the flop in NL.

Re: More aggro, less aggro?
 

Below are my opinions at this stage after only 3309 hands of NL:
1) true. One doesn't have to feel too bad about weak/tight tendencies. I am currently running at 15/5.4/1.88 with 14.56 ptbb/100.
2) true. For pot control.
3) no opinion
4) I think true. I just played 177 hands 25NL and saw a c/r only once. There is a constant threat of all-in, not c/r'ng makes one able to manage this risk better.
5) false, I think it is more often correct to c-bet than not to.

Re: More aggro, less aggro?
 

ty! Is this forum always so dead?

Re: More aggro, less aggro?
 

YES! Although I can't wait to see some answers to this one and to Oink's overpair post...

Sushi, Oink, Bona... more limit players seem to be taking shots at NL.

Re: More aggro, less aggro?
 

1) If "more passive" means your AF should be significantly lower in deep NL I do not agree. But there are many spots where you would hammer in FL but prefer checking in NL: Either because there may be more value in checkcalling or because two or three streets of value may be one or two too many.

2)On the flop also. And on the river oop, but this is very opponent-dependant.

3)Yeah. And you should often fire again once you are called.

4)Im not sure if this is the way to treat tough opponents. Often when I donk my trash because I thought the board has not hit them these bastards raise and I feel outleveled.

5)No. But you shouldnt c-bet as often as in FL, especially oop.

All this may of course be totally wrong [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]