Blinds, damn blinds...

[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.

[Smurph64]

I think I said semi passive as in SLPA. I would raise preflop

Check/call the flop and check/raise the turn against this type of opponent.

Anyone who limps 3 times more than they raise is playing too many hands. His aggro is defined by the hit factor more than anything.

If I don't see betting patterns this is exactly the kind of player that stats are poor in using as reads.

Check/raise of the turn as a semi-bluff can win the hand but either way removes all doubt as to what he has.

If he calls I essentially get a free card look at the river because I can't call a bet unless a heart comes.

The way its played I have to fold but I don't know if I am beat and it cost me 1/2 bb more.