2/4 When you sense its a bluff...

[Ricks]

I just divide the VPIP by 20, which I consider to be somewhere around normal for a VPIP%, plus it is a nice round number. I then use that result to multiply the AF, to get an adjusted AF which is comparable to a normal player. I know this is probably not exact but it gives me an estimate of how the player plays.

The theory behind this is that players with a high VPIP are very often in the position of having to just call a bet with a marginal hand. This calling will skew their actual aggression.

I have been searching for the posts that I got this from. I found a few but I know there are more.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=2129860

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1
the bottom of Harv's post.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post4189456

[BenA]

[ QUOTE ]


The theory behind this is that players with a high VPIP are very often in the position of having to just call a bet with a marginal hand. This calling will skew their actual aggression.



[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this your post is excellent. This is new to me, and I'm glad you brought it up. I think quoting one of these things here is worthwhile, though I think all should be read.

[ QUOTE ]
Post-Flop Agression Factor. The implications of the PT post-flop agression factor is frequently misunderstood. The problem stems from the fact that the AgFactor cannot be read in a vacuum -- it is highly influenced by VP$IP and # of flops seen. In our ML FAQ we restate the consensus view that an AgFactor of 2.0 or higher is cconsidered "aggressive;" 1.0 - 2.0 is "neutral;" and less than 1.0 is "passive." These ranges are by and large considered standard. However, such ranges are based upon an assumed VP$IP of 15 - 20 or so. When we encounter a VP$IP of 65% the same scale does not apply. Why? The AgFactor is calculated as (bet % + raise %) / call %. A 1.5 AgFactor is considered neutral around here, but that's for someone with a reasonable VPIP -- our tendency to bet and raise more than call (and thus get a 1.5 AgFactor) is heavily influenced by the fact that (1) we generally only see post-flop play with strong pre-flop hands, and (2) we generally fold when faced with a poor flop and action from others. To maintin a 1.5 AF (again, more betting and raising than calling) when our VP$IP is 65%, we would need to either: (1) be a very disciplined folder when the flop misses us, so that even though we're seeing ~65% of the flops we are getting away from them immediately when we miss; or (2) bet and raise a whole crapload of terrible and marginal hands. Most 60% VP$IP players are not disciplined folders post-flop, so you should generally assume that a 60/7/1.5 player is betting and raising a whole crapload of terrible or marginal holdings until proven otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[alimoe]

Thanks Ricks, I've been looking for someone to help me understand that. The discussions you highlighted are perfect.

matt