Poker Aggression Guide

Gah, I got this idea in my head and thought I'dwrite it down. A month ago I essentially explained to my AIM buddies something I was thinking about in a lot of depth, as it was a concept that was integral in killing tight passive games.
Pretty much everything I write in this thread is expressions, applications, or branches of a trunk of this one concept: If you have decent equity against a range, and you think there is some fold equity, be inclined to bet/shove.


The premise of this is when I realized that you are never very behind preflop or on the flop versus any range with any decent hand. A gutshot is 20% to win about versus most any range you can put out there. Axs and small pp's are nearly 33% against most stack off ranges of opponents preflop! It's pretty unbelieveable when you realize with dead money in the pot you barely need any fold equity to make this a break even play, and the metagame can be absolutely ridiculous.

Now here are some applications of that concept.

If you have 20% equity or better on the flop and there's fold equity, be inclined to bet/shove.

If you have 33% equity or better facing a stack off calling range preflop facing a threebet or fourbet and you think there's fold equity, raise/shove.

If you can count two hands or more on the river you feel opp likely has and will fold to a bet/shove with, do it.

Try to manipulate your opponent to carry weaker hands into later streets

Try to manipulate your opponent to play a range that you have solid equity against

Try to manipulate your opponent to play passively (note, if he raises are bets and we have 0 FE so we fold, we didn't have any equity against his range did we? IMPORTANT)

If your range is ahead of your opponents range, be more inclined to bet/shove (ISF theorem)

Always try to play your nut hands in a way that leaves room for FE (aka balance your ranges)

Try to make bet sizes that allow for FE if you are called/raised

Try to play in such a way that easily defines your value bets and your bluffs


k done

(NOTE: All of these applications are easily debated by other variables of poker, and I don't refute those claims. But I do believe in spots where you will want to be aggressive, one or more of these applications will correlate)

Posted by IowaSkinsFan on December 06, 2007 at 15:38

IowaSkinsFan wrote:

Try to play in such a way that easily defines your value bets and your bluffs

can you explain this further? I thought that we want to balance our bluffs and value bets?

Posted by bode on December 06, 2007 at 15:51

bode wrote:

IowaSkinsFan wrote: Try to play in such a way that easily defines your value bets and your bluffs can you explain this further? I thought that we want to balance our bluffs and value bets?

Yeah we do.

Look at it this way. We raise preflop with 98s, get a lagg caller from the blinds.

Flop comes 58T two spades, we have none. He checks. If we bet this flop, our value bets and bluffs are not easily defined. If we bet A3 here (very reasonable play) we may fold out something like 64, which we were beating. We can get called from out cbet with 98 by A8, or even T9, JT, some hand like that. We can even get blown off our hand by a worse hand like a fd, total air, 97, j9, qj, etc.

And lets say he calls and the turn comes a 3. He checks again. We think we're ahead a good amount so we could bet again, we could even fold out a better hand like a bad T or a better 8, and sometimes we just value town ourselves. We set ourselves up to play against a range where we really don't know whether we are value betting or bluffing, because it can really be either.

Now if we check behind the T85 flop, and the turn comes a 3. He checks again, We can go bet turn bet river pretty easily as a value bets.

I'm not saying we should check behind in this situation always or w/e, but it explains the concept of it.

Note: This is my understanding of a concept that was explained to me that makes a ton of sense, I very well could be wrong, Sauce or gabe could check me on this one.

Posted by IowaSkinsFan on December 06, 2007 at 16:01

that makes sense. We're defining our value bets/bluffs through our perspective, not villains {acronym Renton hates}

Posted by bode on December 06, 2007 at 16:31

i like this post

Posted by sauce123 on December 06, 2007 at 16:35

This is a really sick post, I absolutely love it.

Posted by Ash256 on December 06, 2007 at 18:45

very nice

Posted by PapalRage on December 06, 2007 at 19:51

Another good one ISF.

Posted by meeloche on December 06, 2007 at 19:52

bookmarked.

Posted by |~|ypermegachi on December 07, 2007 at 00:14

yeah this is prolly ur best post

short and sweet, ty

Posted by Alexos on December 07, 2007 at 00:29

i'm struggling to understand these two. Maybe it's the wording, maybe it's me.

IowaSkinsFan wrote:

Always try to play your nut hands in a way that leaves room for FE (aka balance your ranges)

Are we talking about making our hands look like we are playing them the same as the non nut hands where we need fold equity?

IowaSkinsFan wrote:

Try to make bet sizes that allow for FE if you are called/raised

So we shouldn't be trying to allow them to bluff /raise us to the point where they become committed on a shove? i.e: C-betting mid stacks, or full stacks in 3 bet pots?

Posted by jyms on December 07, 2007 at 02:26

ur gonna get so many people to spew with zero fold equity though!

Posted by sauce123 on December 07, 2007 at 06:39

sauce123 wrote:

ur gonna get so many people to spew with zero fold equity though!

But then they're going to run hot and go on massive heaters and think what they are doing is awesome!

Posted by IowaSkinsFan on December 07, 2007 at 07:14

Against the right player types this guide is awesome

Note: I would presume the right player type equals the true-nits at smaller-stakes and the TAGGs at mid-stakes.

Posted by bigspenda73 on December 07, 2007 at 10:09

im too tired right now to fully appreciate this post but i am definitely going to reread it later!

Posted by Vi-Zer0Skill on December 07, 2007 at 10:19

IowaSkinsFan wrote:

We set ourselves up to play against a range where we really don't know whether we are value betting or bluffing, because it can really be either.

wait, I'm confused. are you advocating betting flop in this hand or not?

Posted by Alibi on December 07, 2007 at 11:20

Alibi wrote:

IowaSkinsFan wrote: We set ourselves up to play against a range where we really don't know whether we are value betting or bluffing, because it can really be either. wait, I'm confused. are you advocating betting flop in this hand or not?

It's completely opponent dependent, i was just trying to explain a concept.

Posted by IowaSkinsFan on December 07, 2007 at 11:58

Trainer_jyms wrote:

i'm struggling to understand these two. Maybe it's the wording, maybe it's me. IowaSkinsFan wrote: Always try to play your nut hands in a way that leaves room for FE (aka balance your ranges) Are we talking about making our hands look like we are playing them the same as the non nut hands where we need fold equity?

yeah... like for example if you have a good hand bet it the same way you would on a normal cbet or double barrel. dont start 1/3 or 1/2 potting it because you want him to stay in this time.

Posted by EzDuzIt on December 07, 2007 at 16:52

Trainer_jyms wrote:

i'm struggling to understand these two. Maybe it's the wording, maybe it's me. IowaSkinsFan wrote: Always try to play your nut hands in a way that leaves room for FE (aka balance your ranges) Are we talking about making our hands look like we are playing them the same as the non nut hands where we need fold equity?

Yes

Posted by IowaSkinsFan on December 08, 2007 at 15:30

Quote:

Try to manipulate your opponent to play a range that you have solid equity against Try to manipulate your opponent to play passively (note, if he raises are bets and we have 0 FE so we fold, we didn't have any equity against his range did we? IMPORTANT)

good example of this? Villain is Saki Saki, ok liquidpoker.net TAGG who cont bets a little too much.

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $4 BB (5 handed) Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

Button ($435.60)
Hero ($439.60)
BB ($248.40)
UTG ($414)
MP ($370.70)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 4, 4.
UTG raises to $14, 2 folds, Hero calls $12, 1 fold.

Flop: ($32) 2, A, 3 (2 players)
Hero checks, UTG bets $23, Hero raises to $60

Is he ever raising?

Posted by Massimo on December 10, 2007 at 14:29

It's a lot harder to play OOP if you didn't notice. In position, I play it the exact same. Yeah idk, it's a pretty tough spot.

Posted by IowaSkinsFan on December 10, 2007 at 14:53

IowaSkinsFan wrote:

It's a lot harder to play OOP if you didn't notice. In position, I play it the exact same. Yeah idk, it's a pretty tough spot.

what? For this move it's better that i'm oop

Posted by Massimo on December 10, 2007 at 16:09

if someone bets the river, and you know your ahead of their betting range, that doesn't always mean you should raise.

Posted by gabe on December 10, 2007 at 17:15

isf, you should spend more time doing actual math and calculations and less time doing sklanskyesque statements that sound good but easily proven bad.

example #1:

Quote:

If you have 33% equity or better facing a stack off calling range preflop facing a threebet or fourbet and you think there's fold equity, raise/shove.

it's usually more like 29-30%, but meh. more importantly:
'and if you think there's fold equity, raise/shove'

lol, what? here's a hint, there is almost always going to be fold equity in any spot where most of your opponent's stack isn't in the middle of the pot. the key is doing an actual equity calculation and figuring out how often they need to fold. another hint: when someone 4-bets with typical 100bb stacks, they are folding to a shove almost never. If you enjoy shoving 86bb into a pot where you're going to have 60bb equity when you're invariably called, ok. and if you're 4-bet shoving yourself, you need more than 'some fold equity'. you often need him to fold 2/3 or more of his range. A lot of people are going to love you for this post, but if they don't understand these concepts, you might actually be doing them a disservice.

similar with flop play: if you have 20% equity and there's enough dead money in the pot and you have enough fold equity, by all means, shove. but you need to quantify that better, A LOT BETTER, than just saying 'if you have 20% equity and there's fold equity, shove' or whatever. that can easily be wrong and often is.

Quote:

Try to play in such a way that easily defines your value bets and your bluffs

I generally disagree with this. It may make your decisions easier, but more importantly, polarizing your range-- which in effect is what you're advocating-- makes it much easier to play against you.

Quote:

Try to manipulate your opponent to carry weaker hands into later streets

I like this. Often times you can play around with how you manipulate pot/stack sizes (i.e. not betting your generic 'standard' amount), or take unstandard lines to do this.

Quote:

If you can count two hands or more on the river you feel opp likely has and will fold to a bet/shove with, do it.

back to the first two examples-- this just seems like another one where it sounds good and all, but the grossly fuzzy math just doesn't seem to help. It just seems better to actually quantify his range and see how to best play it. What if he has 2 hands that seem likely that you beat and 10 that have you crushed? Or he has 2 very weak hands that are overwhelmingly likely but you have the nuts and the board crippled? is betting and shoving still ideal in both cases?


There are a lot of good ideas in your post. Some I think are a bit too abstract to really be useful, and the lack of actual math and calculations makes it a bit less useful still. Good post though.

Posted by Lukie on December 10, 2007 at 19:21

Lukie and to a lesser extent gabe,
I'm studying for finals right now so to Lukie's post im going to want to spend a longer time than i can right now replying to it.

Pretty much all I want to say is that I wrote this (NOTE: All of these applications are easily debated by other variables of poker, and I don't refute those claims. But I do believe in spots where you will want to be aggressive, one or more of these applications will correlate). I think now i am mistaken to have not put this statement first. This is in defense of gabe saying that just because you're ahead of someones range doesnt mean you should raise. Obviously that's the case, but in cases where you're going to want to make a good bluff that will be the case.

I'm making abstract statements for a reason, I just want people to realize where there are good spots to bluff. I know there are countless variables and whatnot that are going to make this statements not absolute. If there weren't someone could simply tell you how to play poker very easily.

BUT Lukie thanks for the critique, I can't say I disagree with much of it. I'm always hesitant to make these sort of posts because I by no means am good enough to be confident they are completely correct.

Posted by IowaSkinsFan on December 10, 2007 at 19:31

Lukie wrote:

Quote: Try to play in such a way that easily defines your value bets and your bluffs I generally disagree with this. It may make your decisions easier, but more importantly, polarizing your range-- which in effect is what you're advocating-- makes it much easier to play against you.

Can you go into more detail about this? Lay out some examples, hands etc. I understand, but feel this is very interesting stuff that can be explained better.

Posted by Rondavu on December 11, 2007 at 15:27

Rondavu wrote:

Lukie wrote: Quote: Try to play in such a way that easily defines your value bets and your bluffs I generally disagree with this. It may make your decisions easier, but more importantly, polarizing your range-- which in effect is what you're advocating-- makes it much easier to play against you. Can you go into more detail about this? Lay out some examples, hands etc. I understand, but feel this is very interesting stuff that can be explained better.

if you are in a spot with any hand in your range, and are facing a shove against an opponent who is polarizing his range, all you essentially have to do is estimate his bluffing frequency and then call/fold accordingly depending on pot odds. But against someone who is merging their range, you must make a uniquely different calculation and decision with every hand in your range, and determine the threshold of call/fold.

Whether one is better/worse than the other, i can't really say. They both seem to have their merits.

Posted by Renton on December 11, 2007 at 15:59

The way I understood it, was that when a person polarizes their range too much, they are either too strong or too weak when betting, and therefore it becomes easier to pick spots to play back.

Is this accurate?

Posted by Rondavu on December 11, 2007 at 16:21

I thought about making something like this a while ago but ISF and Lukie have inspired me. This is a table I made to show the strength of semibluff pushing Vs a made hand. It is by no means perfect. I have assumed a pot sized push. The EV numbers are from assuming we are 100bbs deep and have 33 bbs in the middle already leaving us with a pot sized push. Obviously this will not usually be the case as other players will dump some in as well. In these cases the actual chip EVs will be different, although the breakpoint will be the same if its a potsized push. The other way to think of it is if we are still pushing for 66bbs but the pot is bigger. In this case all of the EVs will be more +VE. Anyway here is my table.



It shows that if we have *some* pot equity then we really don't need alot of FE to make a push +EV.
It also shows that pot equity is more valuable than fold equity.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The equity column means equity against a likely CALLING range, not equity against his range before you push.

e.g. If you have a made hand that has 40% equity Vs his range, and a push will make him fold 40% of his range then that doesn't necessarily mean its a good push since he will probably call you with hands that are a big dog to, whereas if you make a smaller bet you will get value from hands weaker than yours.

Less Important Note: I have the math on paper if anyone wants to see it.

Posted by Pelion on December 11, 2007 at 17:29

That looks about right Pelion, nj.

Posted by IowaSkinsFan on December 11, 2007 at 20:18

nice chart Pelion, very eye opening.

Posted by JJDAMAN on December 12, 2007 at 00:37

numbers make my eyes water

Posted by sauce123 on December 12, 2007 at 01:37

lol

Posted by IowaSkinsFan on December 12, 2007 at 12:51

Pelion we can use that chart on the turn too right? Just re-evaluate our equity for one card left.

Posted by Irisheyes on December 13, 2007 at 21:52

I agree with Lukie. "If your opponent might fold, just raise and shove all-in a lot," is obviously a weak strategy. Yes, if your opponent might fold, you can afford to be a bigger underdog than if he is never folding, but so what? Without numbers, this doesn't mean anything.

Fold equity is a useful idea, but it doesn't justify this strategy you're outlining which is basically just reckless, bad poker.

Posted by dsaxton on December 13, 2007 at 22:58

Irisheyes wrote:

Pelion we can use that chart on the turn too right? Just re-evaluate our equity for one card left.

Yea the equity percentage is just your percent chance to win with no decisions left so it doesn't matter how many cards there are to come. You could use it preflop if you wanted.

Posted by Pelion on December 14, 2007 at 05:59