Tilting Angry Opponents

[cwar]

I play an aggressive style and often times if I get a good run of cards it will seem like Im a maniac. Fairly often Ill be playing an opponent who is fairly passive and straight forward who after experiencing my aggression starts becoming extremely over aggressive and erratic (for example raising every button, c/raising every c-bet, looser calls, lots of overbet pushes, constant floating, etc) and even gets emotionally angry at me in the chat box.

Im confident in my adjustments to this kind of play but it is definitely a harder style to beat (strictly based on the complexity of the counter strategy involved not BB/100) and regardless of my level of skill Im going to make more mistakes against this erratic play.

So I have two questions, is it more profitable to be against a standard readable tight/loose passive or an overly aggressive erratic tilting villain (hes not giving away chips though assume he is making an attempt to play correctly)? If youd rather play the readable villain is it +EV to reduce your raising hands somewhat in an attempt to keep villain stable and readable or if youd rather play the tilting villain would you open up your range in an attempt to tilt him?

For this Im assuming both of villains styles are -EV for him so tilting him is not taking him off a profitable style.

[teteatot]

good post, i've thought about this myself quite a bit. i think keeping villain predictable is quite a bit better, because you don't know how villain will go nuts if he does, and it will likely result in him taking down a few big pots before you start to get an idea. so i'll usually throw villain some bones every once in a while, to help him think that what he's doing is working well enough.

[APXG]

[ QUOTE ]
I play an aggressive style and often times if I get a good run of cards it will seem like Im a maniac. Fairly often Ill be playing an opponent who is fairly passive and straight forward who after experiencing my aggression starts becoming extremely over aggressive and erratic (for example raising every button, c/raising every c-bet, looser calls, lots of overbet pushes, constant floating, etc) and even gets emotionally angry at me in the chat box.

Im confident in my adjustments to this kind of play but it is definitely a harder style to beat (strictly based on the complexity of the counter strategy involved not BB/100) and regardless of my level of skill Im going to make more mistakes against this erratic play.

So I have two questions, is it more profitable to be against a standard readable tight/loose passive or an overly aggressive erratic tilting villain (hes not giving away chips though assume he is making an attempt to play correctly)? If youd rather play the readable villain is it +EV to reduce your raising hands somewhat in an attempt to keep villain stable and readable or if youd rather play the tilting villain would you open up your range in an attempt to tilt him?

For this Im assuming both of villains styles are -EV for him so tilting him is not taking him off a profitable style.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you writing about HU cash or SNG? When an opponent cannot leave (SNG), I actually slow down and at times just fold close EV hands for the sake of maintaining a non-maniac image. This is because if the opponent is passive, he essentially cannot win unless the blinds get astronomical, which, unless he is very lucky, he will not have enough time for in nonturbo.

In HU cash, it obviously depends on stacks and opponents propensity to keep playing you. If he leaves, all your EV is gone. I don't have much personal experience with tilt in its conventional form(my tilt is more a result of tactical mistakes as opposed to bad beats, and is never spontaneous, but instead sets in slower and is harder to get rid of), but I would assume that the average fish on tilt will not just run and quit, though some certainly may, especially if they stack you while on tilt (and maybe "get even").

If you're 300BB deep, you obv aren't looking to grind out 7-10bb pots with a tight/passive donk b.c this will take forever and you may go on tilt because its taking so long to beat a clear fish. So yes, its wayyy more profitable to play an opponent on conventional tilt if you don't mind the swings / have a predetermined general counter-strategy which you just have to tailor a bit to the intricacies / subtle weaknesses of your opponent. Many times hyperaggression is so lethal because people are not ready for the ensuing frenzy. If you are going to induce it, be prepared.

[cwar]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're 300BB deep, you obv aren't looking to grind out 7-10bb pots with a tight/passive donk b.c this will take forever and you may go on tilt because its taking so long to beat a clear fish. So yes, its wayyy more profitable to play an opponent on conventional tilt if you don't mind the swings / have a predetermined general counter-strategy which you just have to tailor a bit to the intricacies / subtle weaknesses of your opponent. Many times hyperaggression is so lethal because people are not ready for the ensuing frenzy. If you are going to induce it, be prepared.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes I was talking about HU SNGs. I liked your point about HU CGs though.

[Sheetah]

<font color="blue">"...let's say I'm in the pot with a guy I've been pounding on and pounding on all night long.

...

Let's say I've got two nines and I raise my opponent before the flop. He calls. The flop comes 10-2-3, and he checks it. I check along. Another rag falls off on fourth street. He checks again. Now, I'm reasonably sure my two nines are the best hand. But I'm not going to bet it. I'll check along with him to show him some respect. The board's awful looking and I'm pretty sure he doesn't have any of it. I'm also quite sure that if I bet I'm not going to get called. So I don't bet.

...

If I keep pushing him out of every pot, sooner or later he's going to stop sticking his head up, and I won't be able to slap him anymore. Then he's going to make me guess. I don't want that. I don't want him to start getting aggressive. That's the hardest player in the world to beat, a guy who you bet at and who's always playing back at you. That's exactly the kind of opponent I don't want to play against. I want all my opponents to be docile.

So it kind of cools him out when I just show down a hand. He knows that I know my two nines are the best hand. But by not betting them, I show him some respect. And because I showed the hand down, I've got him back to thinking that when I bet I'm either bluffing or I've got a hand I'm going to go with. He's back to guessing again. And that's exactly where I want him. I don't want to antagonize him to the point that he starts making me do the guesswork. It serves a lot of purposes to slow down in a situation like that."</font>
- Doyle Brunson, "Super System"

Food for thought

[cwar]

Thats from SS1 and I think its a poorly played hand, NLHE thinking has come a long way since then even Doyle would never check the turn now.

[APXG]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats from SS1 and I think its a poorly played hand, NLHE thinking has come a long way since then even Doyle would never check the turn now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its only a poorly played hand against an aggressive opponent. Most opponents and NLHE thinking now promotes aggression. So, vs. the right opponent, checking that turn is indeed fine. You won't find this opponent nearly as often now as you would in Doyle's time of course, but the fact that the times and thinking have changed / improved doesn't mean that EVERYONE improved / abides by the current thinking.

[Sheetah]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats from SS1 and I think its a poorly played hand, NLHE thinking has come a long way since then even Doyle would never check the turn now.

[/ QUOTE ]
cwar, I find this kinda surprising coming from you. So, you disregard completely the context, strategical considerations, specific reasons for making this play and go straightforwardly: "WTF? He didn't bet the turn!? That's poor play! PERIOD".

Whatever. It's not that the hand is of any special importance here, but the concept addressing OP issue (words I put in bold).

[cwar]

[ QUOTE ]
cwar, I find this kinda surprising coming from you. So, you disregard completely the context, strategical considerations, specific reasons for making this play and go straightforwardly: "WTF? He didn't bet the turn!? That's poor play! PERIOD".


[/ QUOTE ]
This is fair and I do think I jumped the gun. I thought about it and I actually think its an extremely well played hand. However the most useful information from this section of SS is how Doyle considers the metagame of this play NOT his point about the difficulty of beating a constantly bluffing villain.

In a ring game I can definitely envision wanting a tilting tight passive or wanting him to continue to play his normal game. The reason I dont find this is very relevant to HU is that a tilting tight passive is far more desirable in a HU cash game. However there is something about the structure of a 10-30bb stack that makes constantly bluffing closer to a correct strategy, or atleast I think so, this is just my gut feeling and I cant think of a way to figure this out empirically.