Post Flop Play - Passive Better Than Aggressive...discuss

[Acevader]

I've been thinking a lot of late about post flop play and the situations I find myself in. I keep reaching the same conclusion that passive play seems to work better than aggressive play in full ring games. Obviously if you have a strong draw and good FE you should bet/raise, etc and if you have a strong hand and a board that villain(s) may either have a piece of or a good draw on you should bet/raise accordingly.

I guess what I'm saying is that playing a sound made hand (usually a safe TPTK or two-pair+) or a strong draw aggressively is easy and standard.

However, most of the time in poker we have less than top-pair and I'm wondering if its often better to let people just bet their money off. Am I talking rubbish or anyone else agree. My turn play has become particularly passive as I seem to often check it because I have a nothing hand (i.e. my cbet was looked up (and nothing representable hit)) or because I have something and intend to check-call. This is reflected in my PT stats but yet another regulars seem to be quite aggressive on all 3 streets.

It also seems rare at FR that you'll get three streets of value from a lesser hand. For example, I raise AKo mid and find a caller in the blinds. Flop is K,9,6 rainbow and my c-bet is called. Turn 6. These are the sort of situations where I'm starting to lean towards giving a free card and then insta-calling the inevitable river bet. If it's not forthcoming then I'd expect anything up to a pot-sized bet to be called by the likes of KQ/KJ both of which would be unlikely to call 2/3rds pot on both the turn and then river.

I'm rambling a little. I don't have a coherent point really; sort of opening the floor on the subject.