Aggression and Creating Reads

[Frosteater]

Hi, my name is Frosteater and I'm a newb. Not just to this board but to poker. So bare with me if the following might seem like the most stupid thing you read in a while, I'm trying to improve.

I started playing poker a few months ago and began with basically playing my hands more or less for value. A bit slowplay here, some semi-bluffing there. Nothing to brag about. It was enough to win at $0.1/$0.25 6Max, but I encountered serious problems against aggressive players who took control of the action.

Then I stumbled over Tien's very inspiring 6 Max fundamentals for SSNL players and I like to think that I understood the concept. At least it was pretty clear that I needed to become more aggressive, if I wanted to improve my game (or develop one).

So far, so good, I went back to $0.05/$0.1 and tried my best to enhance my game. I think I succeeded to a degree, but ended up losing money. From losing small, winning big pots to the exact opposite. I thought about the cause for this and ended up with a rather freightening observation: I started to underestimate the opponent.

In fact, there's the following dilemma:
Let's say I start out with AK from the button, raise pre-flop and get one caller. The flop comes and I missed it completely. Opponent checks to me, I c-bet about 3/4 - 1 pot. And get called. Or raised. This creates a quite complicated situation for me since I absolutely hate the thought of giving up that pot. Not so much because of losing the money, more because of the image I might create. If I fold against a hand that had me beat at that point, that's fine, but with my opponent's and my cards unseen by anybody else at the table, the clearly-to-see action boils down to the fact that I put money in the pot and abandon it in case someone stays in the pot. Since I'm rather happy to take down pots without a showdown, this is clearly not the image I want to communicate.

If I stay in the pot, on the other hand, I do so with a draw hand against a hand, that presumably has me beat. I give up control and become the fish. Which I don't want, either.

So, I assume, the outcome of my decision has to come down to the read I have on my opponent. And this is what really baffles me and at the moment I have no clue how you guys are capable of reading your opponents rather consistently.

As I try to put my opponent on a hand, his typical "behaviour" is one thing and I guess, I'm doing not too bad at this. But I have to consider the fact, he plays against me, which might influence his hand selection and betting style. Since I try to play aggressive, he might get the idea middle pair is good enough whenever I bet the flop (which is often the case).

If I give his call/raise credit, I probably would have to fold my AK, which missed the flop. He might have gotten that idea, too, and now he knows my pocket pair hit the flop and I have a set, if I stay in the pot. So, if I call his bet on the turn or make one myself, he will get the idea, I have trips and can make an easy fold. Or he can take it one step further: he knows that I know that he puts me on a set in a situation like that and that I might make a bluff on the turn. So, as long as he has a hand, no matter how marginal, he might consider taking it to the showdown, since most of the time I don't have a set, and in case no ace, king or queen showed on the flop, he can assume I didn't hit a high pair as well.

Of course, I might give my opponent too much credit here but the problem at hand remains puzzling to me:

My decisions depend on the read I have on my opponent.
The read I have on my opponent depends on my decisions.

The second sentence seems plausible to me, since my opponent has a read on me, too, which depends on the outcome of my decisions. And since he knows that I have a read on him (though it might be wrong or he might have no idea, what my read on him looks like) and the cause for my decisions aren't solely my cards but my read on him as well, he has the advantage of this knowledge and is in a situation, where he can base his decisions on this advantage.

So if I want to win in situations like this, I think I have to use the fact I'm aware of this to my advantage. To do this, I don't only have to have a read on my opponent, but make also sure he has the read on me I want him to have. And I don't have the slightest idea how to acomplish this.

I apologize if this is the greatest bs ever posted. But I think that table image and handreading / creating reads are cruxial parts of this game that need to be constantly improved and I'd like to hear opinions and strategies on that subject from people who actually know what they're doing.

[pdoran10]

Just sounds like you need to play more as you are not confident in your reads and your table image.
I suggest playing like a sick ridiculous amount to obtain said confidence [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
If you feel like ur getting known as a folder for ur table image for making too many good laydowns when ur clearly beat just switch tables.

[Heine]

welcome to the forums,

post hands, if you want, PM me i'll look over some sessions of yours.

[Frosteater]

Thanks a lot for your opinions. I believe this is really going to help me in the long run, especially pointing out the importance of adapting to different situations and opponents.

Sorry if it's uncommon to bump "old" threads without adding to the content. Just wanted to show some appreciation, since you took the time to address my dilemma so in depth.

[Sean Fraley]

Aggression is a tool, and like any tool, you have to know when and how to use it.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say I start out with AK from the button, raise pre-flop and get one caller. The flop comes and I missed it completely. Opponent checks to me, I c-bet about 3/4 - 1 pot. And get called. Or raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

This happens. The same thing happens when you 3-bet on the button with QQ, and get raised on a 5KA flop. In each case, you made the correct play, and the cards ran against you.

[ QUOTE ]
This creates a quite complicated situation for me since I absolutely hate the thought of giving up that pot. Not so much because of losing the money, more because of the image I might create.

[/ QUOTE ]
What image are you worried about? The image of a player with the balls to be agressive when he has an edge, smart enough to not keep pushing when he's beaten, instead choosing to retreat, regroup, and attack again when he once again has the advantage? Any player who forms an image of you with just a few hands doesn't understand the game well enough. An accurate image of a player builds slowly over the length of a session.

[ QUOTE ]
If I fold against a hand that had me beat at that point, that's fine, but with my opponent's and my cards unseen by anybody else at the table, the clearly-to-see action boils down to the fact that I put money in the pot and abandon it in case someone stays in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
To a player ignorant of the odds and other nuts and bolts of the game, yes, they could form this image of you. But this image would be innacurate. You didn't fold because you are timid and fearful, giving up at the first sign of resistance from another player. You raised preflop because you had a strong hand, one that is definitely worth raising. You folded to a call or raise on the flop because the flop in all likelihood gave your opponent the best hand, and you most likely have only a very small chance to beat him by the river. This can happen to any hand, even AA. This inaccurate image will later work to your advantage, though. What happens when you have AdKd and make a raise, which he calls with AsJs and the flop hits Ah7d2d? In the event that he assumes that you will cave if given enough resistance, he raises your c-bet, throwing money fast into a pot that he will most likely loose.

[ QUOTE ]
If I stay in the pot, on the other hand, I do so with a draw hand against a hand, that presumably has me beat. I give up control and become the fish. Which I don't want, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we have one of the key elements about aggression. It allows you to control the flow of action in a pot. That is one of the reasons it is so important to poker. Look at the reasons we bet or raise, and you will see that all of them are used to in some way control the flow of the hand. When you bluff, you try to control by making someone fold. When you raise preflop with AK, you are trying increase the you expectation (from hand like AQ, AJ, KQ), while pushing out hands that would be a problem on later streets (suited connectors, suited aces, small pocket pairs). Sometimes, other players will take action that causes you, correctly, to relinquish your control of the hand, turning it over to them. The key issue here is that you constantly push in situations where you have control, and can keep that control. When you have no control to start with, or cannot keep that control, if at all possible get out. Another point of note is that you can give up control without being the fish. Folding when it is clear you are beat, especially in early betting rounds, gives your opponent a small pot. Don't give him so much as one chip more than you need to without a really good reason. This in itself is a form of control.

[ QUOTE ]
If I give his call/raise credit, I probably would have to fold my AK, which missed the flop. He might have gotten that idea, too, and now he knows my pocket pair hit the flop and I have a set, if I stay in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your opponent doesn't often know what you have, especially on the flop. Aggression magnifies this problem for him. When he bets, and you raise with TPTK, not knowing that he has two pair, this looks the same to him as when he bets with two pair and you raise with your flopped set. In order to know the difference, he has to pay to find out. If you are selective about when you play aggressively, betting and raising when you perceive yourself as having an edge, stopping only when you have evidence otherwise, over the long run this will cost you opponent more than it costs you.

As for the rest of your post, you are pretty much correct. Poker is a game of constant adjustment for round to round, bet to bet, opponent to opponent. The best of players are the ones who adapt quickly, and play fearlessly.