The Benefits of Aggressive Play
Here we are, discussing something that's not-Poker Tracker-related. I want to discuss something that crosses over the world of both NL and Limit Holdem, and it's the concept of aggressive play.
Last year, when I wrote the auto-rate rules for PokerTracker, I did a TON of research on literally millions of datamined hands, from Stars, Party, and Full Tilt, and the one thing that I discovered was that how many hands a person plays literally doesn't have a damn thing to do with how often or how much they win at the tables. The single factor that determined whether or not a player was successful was whether or not they were aggressive.
By aggressive (you knew there had to be a PT mention), I mean having an aggression factor of more than 1.5 on ALL streets (betting or raising 1.5 times as much as they call). At first glance, you might think that this requires a lot of bluffing, and yes, you're right. Bluffing, and SEMI-bluffing.
When you examine my PokerTracker NL database, the one thing that stands out to me is my W$WSF (Won Money When Saw Flop). My figure there (playing $50 and $100 NL mostly, with some $200 and $400 NL mixed in) is an obnoxious 41.84%. This means that for every flop I see, I'm winning a pot nearly half the time. How? Easy. The key to aggressive play in Holdem is to (drumroll please)...Play your drawing hands like they were weaker made hands, but made hands nonetheless.
An example in NL...I'm in the CO with KsJs, and I open after 2 limpers for 5 xBB. One limper folds, and the BB calls, so three of us see a flop of 8s-Td-3s. Limper checks to me, so my action is...
Bet the pot. I'll vary this here between betting half-pot to betting full-pot based on my read of the opponent. If I have an opponent who is very aggressive, I'll make him think about raising with what could be a top-pair only hand, and I'll fire out a full-pot bet, meaning that if he chooses to raise, he's going to be risking a damn-good sized portion of his stack...To put it into numbers:
$100 NL:
At this point, there would be $17.50 in the pot. If I bet full pot, I'm firing $18 into the pot. Any raise he puts in has to be AT LEAST $36, or over a third of a normal stack, and that's just for a min-raise. A real raise would be for at least half-a-stack.
Looking at the multi-leveled thinking...What do you have? You have the second-nut-flush-draw (9 outs), you have two overcards (6 outs, potentially, assuming your opponent doesn't have a set or a pair with your shared overcard), and you have a backdoor straight draw (1.5 outs). You could have as many as 16.5 outs, giving you a 66% chance of hitting SOMETHING by the river. What does your opponent have? I don't know, and I don't care. All I care about is what he would raise me back with. Would he raise me back with AT (TPTK)? I hope so. Would he raise me with a set? Yes. Would he raise me with Axs? Possibly, but how many players are going to risk >half of their stack with just a naked flush draw?
See my point? If you're re-raised, you can re-assess the situation, but typically, you're beaten. If you have a good read on your opponent, this becomes second nature. More often than not, your opponent will fold to your show of aggression and you'll take down the pot.
In the above example, if your opponent is passive, bet half-to-three-quarters of the pot. Why? Because secretly, you WANT that call. Again, a raise usually means you're behind, but if he calls this "smaller bet," one that would be considered "weak" by your aggressive standards, all you're doing is building a pot for when you DO hit your draw. It also almost ensures that he'll check the turn to you, allowing you to see a free card to beat him.
In Limit Holdem, betting and/or raising with your strong draws allows players to get odds to continue to call your bets, AND it builds pots for when the draws come in.
To be more aggressive, start playing your draws more like made hands. You and your winrate will thank me for it.
Last year, when I wrote the auto-rate rules for PokerTracker, I did a TON of research on literally millions of datamined hands, from Stars, Party, and Full Tilt, and the one thing that I discovered was that how many hands a person plays literally doesn't have a damn thing to do with how often or how much they win at the tables. The single factor that determined whether or not a player was successful was whether or not they were aggressive.
By aggressive (you knew there had to be a PT mention), I mean having an aggression factor of more than 1.5 on ALL streets (betting or raising 1.5 times as much as they call). At first glance, you might think that this requires a lot of bluffing, and yes, you're right. Bluffing, and SEMI-bluffing.
When you examine my PokerTracker NL database, the one thing that stands out to me is my W$WSF (Won Money When Saw Flop). My figure there (playing $50 and $100 NL mostly, with some $200 and $400 NL mixed in) is an obnoxious 41.84%. This means that for every flop I see, I'm winning a pot nearly half the time. How? Easy. The key to aggressive play in Holdem is to (drumroll please)...Play your drawing hands like they were weaker made hands, but made hands nonetheless.
An example in NL...I'm in the CO with KsJs, and I open after 2 limpers for 5 xBB. One limper folds, and the BB calls, so three of us see a flop of 8s-Td-3s. Limper checks to me, so my action is...
Bet the pot. I'll vary this here between betting half-pot to betting full-pot based on my read of the opponent. If I have an opponent who is very aggressive, I'll make him think about raising with what could be a top-pair only hand, and I'll fire out a full-pot bet, meaning that if he chooses to raise, he's going to be risking a damn-good sized portion of his stack...To put it into numbers:
$100 NL:
At this point, there would be $17.50 in the pot. If I bet full pot, I'm firing $18 into the pot. Any raise he puts in has to be AT LEAST $36, or over a third of a normal stack, and that's just for a min-raise. A real raise would be for at least half-a-stack.
Looking at the multi-leveled thinking...What do you have? You have the second-nut-flush-draw (9 outs), you have two overcards (6 outs, potentially, assuming your opponent doesn't have a set or a pair with your shared overcard), and you have a backdoor straight draw (1.5 outs). You could have as many as 16.5 outs, giving you a 66% chance of hitting SOMETHING by the river. What does your opponent have? I don't know, and I don't care. All I care about is what he would raise me back with. Would he raise me back with AT (TPTK)? I hope so. Would he raise me with a set? Yes. Would he raise me with Axs? Possibly, but how many players are going to risk >half of their stack with just a naked flush draw?
See my point? If you're re-raised, you can re-assess the situation, but typically, you're beaten. If you have a good read on your opponent, this becomes second nature. More often than not, your opponent will fold to your show of aggression and you'll take down the pot.
In the above example, if your opponent is passive, bet half-to-three-quarters of the pot. Why? Because secretly, you WANT that call. Again, a raise usually means you're behind, but if he calls this "smaller bet," one that would be considered "weak" by your aggressive standards, all you're doing is building a pot for when you DO hit your draw. It also almost ensures that he'll check the turn to you, allowing you to see a free card to beat him.
In Limit Holdem, betting and/or raising with your strong draws allows players to get odds to continue to call your bets, AND it builds pots for when the draws come in.
To be more aggressive, start playing your draws more like made hands. You and your winrate will thank me for it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home