Blinds, damn blinds...

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that blind steals are a separate situation from regular play. Since we don't have notes on whether this guy realizes that or not, or what he plays in this situation, folding a legitimate hand for one bet isn't a play I'm going to make. Reads from non-steal situations often won't carry over to steal situations. I don't remember how many hands we have on this guy, but I didn't think it was all that many.

[/ QUOTE ]

My counter-point is that blind steal situations don't lead to the neglect of hand reading and thinking about your hand strength. Many players made (continue to make?) this sort of mistake moving from full ring to 6-max. All of a sudden, any pair was the nuts and A-high was a good enough hand to showdown in every situation. But it's simply not the case. A blind steal in a full ring (well, 8 handed) game is not the same as a blind steal in 6-max, and is not like playing a heads up match. To call down here is to gamble that a player with 41/13/1.6 stats will turn into a super-aggro-monkey in a blind steal situation AND that the super-aggro-monkey didn't have a hand this time.

[Smurph64]

K7o is a definite stealing range hand from the sb against most opponents but against a loose semi passive player? It's a lock.

Its a loser this time because his crap outhit your crap but I would raise this everytime against this guy.

I don't like the way the hand was played at all after the flop but preflop I have no problem with it.

[shuinthehouse]

[ QUOTE ]
K7o is a definite stealing range hand from the sb against most opponents but against a loose semi passive player? It's a lock.

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy is NOT passive, he is 41/13/1.6, his AF is high relative to the number of hands he plays. There is a great thread on analyzing AF, which suggests multiplying VPIP * AF and comparing that to a base, likely your own, to judge relative aggression. Most people consider e.g. 20/10/3.0 to be aggressive, and 20*3=60, villain here is 41*1.6 = 65.6.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a great thread on analyzing AF, which suggests multiplying VPIP * AF and comparing that to a base, likely your own, to judge relative aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link? I'm not sure if I buy that VPIP * AF is a reasonable measure of aggression.

[shuinthehouse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a great thread on analyzing AF, which suggests multiplying VPIP * AF and comparing that to a base, likely your own, to judge relative aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link? I'm not sure if I buy that VPIP * AF is a reasonable measure of aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

too busy to do it the first time, but I've learned so much from your posts I had to research it for you [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. You will note there are some heavy hitters weighing in on this, which is why I put so much faith in it.

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...te_id/1#import

Also note I discovered it in this 'legendary posts' thread, which is a fantastic source
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0&fpart=1

[bozlax]

I remember that thread...I think it was Kwaz (I know, I could just click the link and look it up, but I like to test my recall) that put forth this idea. The problem I've always had with it is that the PT aggression factor is so strongly influenced by other factors that using it is excessively prone to exponential error.

Take, for instance, Player Tightie-Whitey: you've watched him play 100 hands...he's folded all but 18 of them preflop, including in the blinds, so his VPIP is around 14. Out of those 18 hands he's check/folded 14 on the flop, bet or raised 3 and folded the table, and called one after which he rasied the turn and his only opponent folded. His PAF is 4, meaning his aggression quotient or whatever you want to call it is 72! Is he aggressive, playing weak-tight at a weak-tight table, or playing at a LAGgy table that doesn't like tight players that won't go along with them so they aren't giving him any action?

[shuinthehouse]

Good points Boz, it is well documented AF takes a while to converge and should not be relied on without sufficient hands. But in the instant case that means we should be saying villain appears aggressive FWIW after 100 hands, not be saying he appears passive FWIW after 100 hands.