Re: is this close?
That reply was freaking gold.. Just want to add to what your talking about with the metagame effect of agression.
There are a few "cautious" regulars in games that I play with, who play solid ABC poker that are like open books to other good players who are willing to take risks to exploit them. Why? Because once you get to a certain competence level in poker, every good player has a decent understanding of the textbook plays for most siatuations.
Textbook ABC poker however is still exploitable poker. It doesn't involve any 3-bet bluffs on the turn with air on a rag board, it doesn't involve any capping on the river with a weak hand. Surprisngly, Optimal poker DOES. The reason people don't play this way is there are widely known accepeted flaws of the avergae poker player. They call too much when it's obvious there beat and they have a strong hand. All the best players in the small stakes fall victim to this (for good reason).
Another example where ABC poker can leave you exploitable is slowplaying in small pots. Say the hand is four way. Flop comes T26 in a 5 way unraised pot and you are in the BB with 22. If SB bets, you almost definitly want to call. If you had only 1 pair, you would now likely want to raise or fold to protect your hand.
Unfortuantly this basically turns your hand face open to someone who knows exactly how you think. A good player who knows this could take a line that might fold a pair if you raise, and if you call, can fold AA with ease. The opposite of what you want.
The same is true to a degree for agression levels on certain boards (although not nearly as exact).
If I know a player is playing meekly and is unlikely to adapt to counter what I'm doing, I can exploit situations where ABC poker leaves there hand vulnerable.
I can often put in an extra raise in a close situation, because I wont have to fear hands that only slightly beat me coming over the top... Or bluffs.
example:
You raise 66 CO and get 3-bet by an ABC button, blinds fold and you call.
Flop comes 457 two suited, you check/call
turn comes 9 , you check/raise.
Now let's examine the hand from buttons perspective.
Let's say he has a hand like QQ, or AKs with a flush draw.
If you take the "safe" route and are frequetnly calling down instead of 3-betting, you give any pair/draw the ability to rape your range by waiting to the turn. If you get agressive by 3-betting some overpairs and your flush draws, it will make many hands think twice about trying to get value from your AK/AQ/AJ hands... Yes you may lose more to a set/straight, but by being more agressive, you've scared your opponents into behaving and being predictable. They will have a pair or a draw way more than they will have a monster.
This is also true with turn donks. If you are always "calling down" strong hands to donks on scare cards (like 3-flush just made, board just paired) then opponents can bet these cards very liberally with their marginal hands, because they wont have to fear a raise, but still will get payed off by worse hands because it looks like a bluff.
That being said, the metgame effects of agression are hard to quantify and many times playing a hand passivly is often both safer (easier decisions) and most importantly, more profitable. And FWIW, I also think for the hand in discussion, the decision is close.
* EDIT/PS *Is it sad that I enjoy talking about the meta game effects of agression in short handed limit poker more than the topics of 99.9% of my daily conversations? *sigh*
|