Why passive poker works fine, sometimes.

[mvdgaag]

Thanx all, for your comments/critiques. More is welcome [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Mibbbbbbb....]

Often the problem with agressive play is, that you'll find yourself overplaying many hands and finding yourself in difficult spots when facing raises. Like getting bluffed of the best hand or paying off monsters for the full amount. Tho' I don't have much deep insight on this so don't mind me. I never posted.

[mvdgaag]

Mibbbbbbb: Indeed. That's why I think its a good thing to keep the pot small with top pair hands. There's two ways: Make the cbet and check the turn for pot control. Or check the flop and check/call or bet the turn. The problem with the cbet/check line is that when you're OOP villans will often bet the turn when you go for pot control and you failed to keep the pot small.

I prefer the last line on dry flops with big pairs, especially OOP. Villains will often bet/raise a smaller pair on the turn when you have been passive and they get a chance to catch up a bit to do so.

[PantsOnFire]

One possible drawback is you might start to get predictable. As well, since you are looking for villain to tell you he is ahead, then you might get bluffed a bit more than usual.

They say that unrestrained aggression is bad but selective/aggressive is good. Perhaps the same applies here. Passiveness is usually wrong but maybe you can find a way to play selective/passive for a profit.

I would think that you really need to know villain to do this. And perhaps multiway pots are not a place for this play.

Anyways, interesting and original post, thanks.

[mvdgaag]

Hi PantsOnFire, pooh-bah? You go quickly up the ranks [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I also check OOP with air on dry flops, so I think I'm not more predictable. I lose a little from not cbetting, but I can still make a delayed cbet on the turn quite often and win bigger pots more often when I do catch a pair.

I agree I'm more vulnerable to bluffs, but at where I play (uNL) people don't really get that agressive as an exploit in my experience.

The situation where we're OOP, the flop is dry and we're at most 3way, preferably headsup are the circumstances in which a passive line might be more profitable than the usual bet,bet or bet,check/call line.

Does anyone use other passive lines or have other criteria for chosing a passive VS an agressive line?

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi PantsOnFire, pooh-bah? You go quickly up the ranks [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I also check OOP with air on dry flops, so I think I'm not more predictable. I lose a little from not cbetting, but I can still make a delayed cbet on the turn quite often and win bigger pots more often when I do catch a pair.

I agree I'm more vulnerable to bluffs, but at where I play (uNL) people don't really get that agressive as an exploit in my experience.

The situation where we're OOP, the flop is dry and we're at most 3way, preferably headsup are the circumstances in which a passive line might be more profitable than the usual bet,bet or bet,check/call line.

Does anyone use other passive lines or have other criteria for chosing a passive VS an agressive line?

[/ QUOTE ]
You know, given your hand example, I would have to say that this is more along the lines of pot control.

Just the very defintion of pot control is to not be aggressive. That means checking OOP. And as an added bonus, a hand like TPTK, played passively for a medium size pot is also good hand to snap off a river bluff.

Further, now I have thought of another benefit. When you do snap off your first bluff, players are going to be much more reluctant to bluff you out at the river when a hand goes down like this.

I do still have some reservations about your excellent hands you now want to bet for value. What are these players going to think about that? I suppose if you stop getting calls on your value bets, you need to step up the stone cold bluffs and semi-bluffs.

Overall, I like your idea. If it is part of an otherwise normal gameplan, it certainly adds an other dimension.

[yenman]

I have been doing things similarly. I called down people with hnads like TPMK and OVERPS on three streets and got plenty of value. To some people it may seem like strangely passive play. but it is also a way to play against certain opponents.

the reality is, sometimes when your opponent ends up drawing out on you if ou play the pot real aggro, they will end up stacking you for more.

like for example

AK versus mid pair.

pot is 20 on lfop A-8-3

you bet 17 on flop, villain calls.
pot is 54 on turn, and you bet 50. board is now A-8-3-9.
villain shoves. you are only 50 more behind.

you call and are shown 8-9.

the main issue here is, that our lead on the flop pretty much committs us to betting the turn when your OOP.

Im not saying that this always happens but it happens a lot. so it certainly is not a horrible strategy. also, there is no need to check all streets. you can check check flop and lead turn with TP for example. or you can check raise as well.

I think OOP it is importnat to try go get money in situations where we are winning much as possible. often, we end up committing our stacks when we are losing...

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
Often the problem with agressive play is, that you'll find yourself overplaying many hands and finding yourself in difficult spots when facing raises.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are talking about spewing chips; aggro play does not equal spew. lagtards/tagfish don't really think about why they are being aggressive, they just throw chips into the pot hoping to induce folds/incorrectly evaluate the value of their hands. using passive play as your default can save you some big losses, but it reduces your profit.

using this mindset as a default you can't expect to extract maximum value as it will be very easy to tell when you have a hand you like.

[Gonso]

What I was saying about it being okay to be a little passive....

I'm mainly just addressing that bluffs and semi-bluffs lose a lot of their inherent value at those limits, while value bets and raises gain value. Pulling back some of your c-bets can be effective, for example.

I'm not saying just play weak-tight poker.

[tarheeljks]

yeah i know you aren't, but op is getting close by overemphasizing the need to keep pots small.