Passive vs. Aggro Case Study

[mojoyoyo]

We had been talking in the thread "Let's discuss and fix weak-tight" about passive vs. aggro thinking.

Very recently I was heads-up with a winning player who gets auto-rated into tight-aggro (remember I am auto-rated into tight-passive). There are two events that I think demonstrate with crystal clarity the difference *in thinking* between aggressive post-flop and passive post-flop.

Here is how the hand goes down:

Aggro man raises for the blinds in late position, I call his bet in the BB with K9. Not my favorite hand to defend with, but let's give it a try.

The flop comes 9 high. I hit top pair, good kicker. My money says he has a big ace. I bet into him, he raises, and I call. The rest of the hand does not matter for the purpose of this discussion.

Now I am going to turn over his cards and explain how an aggressive player thinks (him) compared to a player who is aggressively-challenged (I am beginning to resent the term "weak").

He has AKs. He had flopped a 4FL with 2 big overcards. Notice the following:

Notice the outs. He has in reality 13 (spades, 1K, 3A). He might have estimated as high as 15 or as low as 12. With 2 cards to come, he is about 50-50.

Point 1: I bet into him respresenting *something* and he raises with (as yet) nothing. As an aggressively-challenged player, I would have called here.

Aggro-thinking: I am 50-50. He might have something. He might have me beat badly. But there are going to be times where my raise here will cause a check-fold on the turn if a scare card comes, even if it is not one of mine (where he will fold a small 1 pair). This has got to, over the long run, make me about 60-40 in these situations.

Passive-thinking: I am about 50-50. I don't have anything yet. I am going to call and see what the turn brings.

Point 2- I read him a big ace and missing. My read was dead-on. I bet into him and he raises me-

Passive-thinking: My read might be wrong, so I will call it back and see what the turn brings.

Aggro-thinking: My reads are usually right. He has *so* missed the flop. I am going to 3-bet his weak attempt to push me around and properly punish him for drawing to whatever it is he is drawing to.

So, in summary:
1. In his shoes, I make the wrong play (call vs. raise)
2. In my shoes, I make the wrong play (call back vs. re-raise)

I suspect this how a lot of the weak-tight issues crop up.

BTW- aggro man spikes an ace and takes the pot. But he leaves me with an image and path worth more than 1 small HU pot.

[hustalasta]

[ QUOTE ]
Aggro-thinking: My reads are usually right. He has *so* missed the flop. I am going to 3-bet his weak attempt to push me around and properly punish him for drawing to whatever it is he is drawing to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you got this wrong.

I'm thinking a Tight Passive bet into me on the flop, he has a made hand or a very strong draw. However, I have a very strong draw & will probably take down this pot near 50% of the time. I'm going to raise this flop and probably cap if my passive opponent 3 bets. I may get a free card on the turn, I'm definately not taking a high card hand to showdown against this opponent. Even If I don't get a free card the pot is big enough for me to continue to the river, where I will fold unimproved and sometimes make an extra bet or two when I hit my flush on the river. If an A or K hits on the turn or river the hand plays a little differently but I'm sure I can outplay my opponent and will come out ahead more often than not.

[antneye]

And the maniac thinks.........

"Wow, I have 2 cards, lets raise"

[Bona]

a- Good spot with that read to check raise the flop. He may fold to a check raise.

But the reality is, as you have indicated, it is not whether your read was right because it won't always be and its certainly not whether you won the hand it is whether your thought process is on the "critical pathway" and it seems to be . NH

[Todd]

[ QUOTE ]


1. In his shoes, I make the wrong play (call vs. raise)

[/ QUOTE ]

Two things, when you have a nut flush draw, in position raise, even if it is heads up, and you are only 45:55 to win. Good things happen when you are aggressive.

Second, when you raise the blinds on the button, you should not go into turtle mode unless the flop is scary. Assuming your hand range for a button steal is tighter than any two, you definately have outs. Plus, the rare times you raise in steal position with a premium hand, you will want to raise, so it provides cover for the great hands you will sometimes get here.

[ QUOTE ]

2. In my shoes, I make the wrong play (call back vs. re-raise)

[/ QUOTE ]

In your shoes, I think you show more strength by check raising this flop than by bet-3 betting.

3 betting here is dangerous, since your top pair is very vulnerable. Your hand is the definition of reverse implied odds. Any card that hits the turn (except a K or 9) will make it hard for you to play, and you will be OOP to boot.

If you go with a check raise, which DOES tell villain that you have a real hand, you can then decide to fold to the 3-bet, (which is villains way of saying, so do I) or call and see what the turn brings.

This is how I would think about it anyway.

Todd

[James.]

it's not about passive or aggro. it's about adjusting to how your opponents play to maximize your profit. sometimes the line that makes the most money is passive. sometimes an aggressive line is the best one to take. once you realize that poker is about making the right adjustments for the situation at hand you will become a better player. also you need to 3bet pf in your blind example. you need to send a message. a guy will be alot less prone to steal with such a wide range if he knows he'll be 3bet frequently.