Ok so there’s a lot going on against aggro pf play, shoving and all that so I tried something yesterday in a 200/400 NLHE 6 Max ring game which is the game I’ve been playing a lot lately.
Regardless of the rank/skill level there’s a fair amount of limping/cold calling pf in ring games and in this one too. So instead of playing as usual I raised like 75% of the hands I got dealt regardless of the two cards sizing it 3,5x and poted every single time on the flop.
Turned out that I won 5-6 pots in a row with the same exact pattern:
2 or 3 limpers I raised 3,5x or 4x
1 or 2 folds, 1 or 2 cold call
Folds to every pot cbet
Now I have to say that I probably built a TAG/LAG image before at 200/400 so it might have helped but still nobody adapted their game after 5-6 iterations of the exact same thing. Or actually they did adapt, they opened their cold calling range even more! It allowed me to max value any decent hand that I had post flop. For example any AT+ became basically a premium for me since I got calls from second best hands every single time, something I usually don’t get.
No one ever light 3 betted me pf or raised my pot flop C-bet. I’m starting to think that this aggro play is somewhat valid under the circumstances. I’m not saying I’ll always play like this since it’s bad in the long run but voluntarily making surges like this can be very beneficial.
Just curious, but why do you say that style is bad in the long run?
You have to assume they will miss the flop 75% of the time and fold to your c bets. When you get a call, you can always slow down and will suck out a few of those times too. How many flop calls would you need to get to make this unprofitable?
It sounds like you were at an ideal table for that kind of play… I would have played like that until until it became unprofitable.
[quote=“SunPowerGuru, post:2, topic:3331”]sounds like you were at an ideal table for that kind of play
[/quote]
Well that is why I think it’s not profitable in the long run because you must be at a table that allows you to do that and you need people who adapt poorly. So basically it’s profitable as long as you adapt faster than the table which seems to be a very long time (I had no clue). I’ll try again and let you know but against competent players this is a no-no, against limpers/cold callers maniacs it’s actually awesome. I was just amazed
It might actually be far better than just playing good solid poker (more abc poker).
Not that I’m an expert _( I have "2.5k chip,TOTAL, mainly because I really struggle to take it seriously,free chips yada yada . I do happen to have a nice real cash bankroll however )
But in regards to Rings here on Replay I believe that Qu410 is definitely correct. There is far too much limping and cold calling PF. A lot of the time the payers here on Replay practically beg you to play aggro PF with a display of perpetual limping , 80% of players limping to see flop Constantly.
If you too actually wish to see the flop(With decent holdings) it would merely highlight your incredible lack of diligence if you were not to attempt a raise in order to narrow the field. Plus, obviously, due to the intense flaccidity of your “Average” opponent the situation definitely lends itself to a more aggro approach regardless of holdings . I even find floating the flop and turn with intention to steal on the river is far more profitable here on Replay than it would be on the actual felt.
Caution is essential???
Because it’s so easily abused by any decent player
It’s not about the flop play actually, people that raise every hand (or close to every hand) will statistically be doing this with weaker holdings than people that raise like a TAG (as in, around 1/5 hands)
This means that you should be 3betting a lot vs people that raise too much. 98s in position? just 3bet and see what happens, it’s likely that villain will fold because again, statistically, he has weaker holdings on average.
Cbetting every flop is certainly open for debate even though i do it almost every time, but i don’t open raise this wide. My cbets are plausible at the very least. If you cbet every time and raise around 70% of your hands (even 40% for that matter) no decent player will ever fold to your bets, they might actually throw in a raise to see where they stand, and as the raiser, you’ve just thrown away more money.
Sure on this table it might’ve been a correct strategy, but if there’s one decent player at the table this strategy won’t work. The fishes are setting themselves up for losing money by just calling, but fishes are fishes.
Yes but that doesn’t mean you should go crazy and start raising with calling hands like KJs and QJs (that statistically have decent equity in MW pots vs limp/call fishes) Might as well come along with a limp and get more money into the pot later, and get out cheaper if you brick.
You do have some valid points LeMow, though I’m talking about not complete idiotic passive fishes since they must have a fold button and most players in that game were top 4000 (I know it doesn’t mean much but still).
Then you also have a group thing that is the aggro player has a target on his back and everybody wants to take him out and that is a huge mistake. The table should play altogether against him and not limping mindlessly and cc for no reason. But you only need one dude to give the others a fair price and by the time you get to the flop there’s already a bloated pot of 14BB to 15,5 BB, any pot c-bet is scary because you should at least raise 2,25x making it a 63BB to 69,75BB pot which is massive!
All of sudden you have a marginal hand and you’re committed, not that great imo.
I also don’t think that suited connectors pf and post are doing great against this type of aggressiveness given three things:
if he 4 bets you’re done
suited connectors rarely crush the flop
when they do it’s somewhat scary even to an aggro player
So to me the proper counter is fairly simple. suited connectors have about 50% equity against 2 random cards (obviously the highest SC have better equity), Ax have about 60% (same remark). So wait for any Ax mp/lp with no limpers before you, limp, he will raise, 3 bet him like 3x and be ready to go to war. Basically if he folds you’re happy, if he 4 bets you shove, if he c/c you play poker post flop keeping in mind that if you hit anything even a bs low pair you’re in a shove mode.
You 3bet with suited connectors to isolate the fishy maniac that applies this strategy, you don’t actually want to raise with suited connectors if the whole table has already called, you’re right about that but if you’re in position and it folds to you after the wide-raise fish raises, you might as well try it.
The point about 4 betting is valid, but not in context: you’re always done vs 4bets, either you have a hand worth continuing with or you don’t: i’d fold ATs the same as i would fold 98s
Suited connectors rarely crush the flop? Sure: but if you get it heads up you might bluff the fish off (if you 3bet it there shouldn’t be that many limpers behind, i agree that if there are, you’re screwed but that’s why you 3bet it) And the times you do hit it’s pretty likely he has something like a weak pair which is both in his range and it’s also something he will call down with because he’s a fish.
I’m calling 98s behind with multiple limpers already in the pot as well, but if there aren’t you might as well rep big.
And this, in a nutshell, is the point. Any strategy is only good to the extent it works at a particular table and time. If and when it stops winning, it’s time to try something else or find a new table.
Yeah, any decent player will see what you’re doing and play back at you, but even the fishiest fish might check/shove the flop if they hit a set or whatever. If they let you win 5 or 6 in a row and then you have to fold one to a check-raise, so what? You’re way ahead anyway.
Against the table as described, it’s the perfect strategy as confirmed by the results.
No you don’t, you 3 bet for outright profit i.e. instant fold from him. Him cold calling your isolation is the worst thing that can happen to you (so technically it’s not even an isolation).
Because think next street, in this case the flop: he represented a slightly bigger hand than his random usual raising pf range (which is any two cards really) so there’s no reason for him to not C-bet pot and that’s gonna be a huge C-bet size so what are you gonna do about it?
You crush the flop 5% of the time that’s nothing. You have some kind of remote equity 23% of the time, are you gonna shove when you do catch an oesd or a flush draw or a top pair low kicker? Probably not.
Well I’d say the exact opposite. in general if you light 3 bet (and 3 bet pf with SC or Ax is light except for AK, could make a case for AQ) you’re done when you face a 4 bet.
In this particular situation there’s a huge difference between SC and Ax when you think about the aggro range. Him 4 betting means he has some kind of card “strength”, now it’s relative because he could have a SC of his own, maybe Broadways two gappers, maybe Ax or the occasional nuts.
Ax is basically a coin flip+ against this range (51% and change), not something to be exited about if it comes to a shove/call but you do have fold equity against him (even more so given you have a blocker) so it is profitable since you’ll make him fold at a really high rate (you represent a monster, even an aggro maniac gets that) and in the possible but less likely event that he does call you, you still have equity. SCs have 40% equity, that is a huge gap.
I don’t see why anyone would want to isolate with SC anyway… they don’t play well heads up. You will usually miss the flop or everyone will fold when you hit it, and you won’t have the right pot odds to chase down a draw unless there are several people still in.
“No you don’t, you 3 bet for outright profit i.e. instant fold from him.” <<< this
“You 3bet with suited connectors to isolate the fishy maniac” <<< not this
Why would you isolate against someone who will probably have you beat on the flop and won’t fold to a bluff? You can’t rep a hand to someone who only thinks about their own cards.
yeah sorry my b you do actually want folds with sc, point is though that you should 3bet with them anyways because as you already said: [quote=“Qu4l0, post:10, topic:3331”]
you represent a monster, even an aggro maniac gets that
[/quote]
It has been very interesting to read everyone’s thought processes. In my opinion the aggro-style is not sustainable by itself (because it only takes 1-2 opponents adjusting for you to lose some big pots), but it shows the utility of changing gears and playing to the table and your opponents.
From my experience on Replay, you don’t want to consistently raise with hands that have marginal equity like weak broadways or suited connectors because you aren’t going to get enough folds and they just aren’t going to smash often enough and will leave you in tricky situations where you want to continue, but are probably behind.
The way to employ the aggro-strategy is to mix in raises when you have complete trash if you think the table is too tight or you can isolate a particular opponent who is very fit-or-fold. With trash, you don’t have to worry about your actual equity, just your opponent’s strength. Plus it exploits the TAG image. However, “strength” is relative, and plenty of opponents on Replay will call down with things that make no sense. It all comes down to being flexible with your range and your play in general.
So definitely not. The only one I might go to war with is KQs and that’s debatable. And KQs is a little bit more than your classic middle SC, it has more equity “built in”. You’ll catch top pair 2nd kicker about a third of the time on the flop and that’s very nice.
on the flip side read this - a player played just one hand sitting in the rings in the past one hour but saw each and every flop if there was no raise to the point if the raise preflop was from 1000 to 2000 the player would fold.i play the rings when there is no big tourney on and lost millions on it already but play as there is action by the minute.i asked this player why would you sit here and not play a hand as i do not beleive you didnt even get suited or on suited connectors preflop leave aside a dealt pair.the reply was im not on the right seat…i cracked up…lolll!!! apparently as i was told just two seats get dealt the cards and you will more often than not see two players sitting with 500k/600k on a max buy in 200k chips-500/1k blinds.the player was right about the fact that mostly its one/two players and not necessary or even close to being ranked inside the 1000 players leading the pack.Then i also realised this player just sits there and waits for premium hands to come and wont play anything less than QQ.
So do you beleive that the table has hot seats? everytime i play on this table everyone states the same thing -hotseat
I don’t, and the guy’s logic is very weird if he thinks staying in there to fold everything except premiums will make him cash against a hypothetical “hot seat”. If he really believes in that, why doesn’t he leave the table and go find the hot seat for himself elsewhere? It doesn’t make any sense.
Well KQs is doing great against a very aggro pre-flop raising strategy (like 50% opening, it’s so ugly to look at but hey if he opens half of the time that’s what you should see and you’ve about 60% equity against that junk holding KQs).
However if you’re thinking going to war that means the aggro guy 4 bet your 3 bet and then his range is definitely not the same, in that case your KQs doesn’t look that great, so I agree it will be dominated most of the times.
So that’d be actually a good hand to flat his pf agression and see what comes on the flop because you’ll get either a top pair second kicker or a decent draw a large chunk of the time. From there it would be really easy to just check call until the river if you caught a pair or shove your decent draw on the flop.
Definitely not fit to go to war pf but could be a silent sniper post.
If he knows there are hot seats, he should be one of the top ranked players. Is he?
One wouldn’t have to be a genius to ride that kind of information right to the top. (If it was true, which it isn’t)
If asked about why he isn’t in the top 10, he would say, “The hot seat changes often.”
One can’t expect winning hands to be perfectly evenly distributed in the short term. So yes, one or two seats at any table will always be winning more… in the short term. The only way this will balance out (and it eventually always will) is for the “hot seats” to change. This isn’t by design, it’s just the way things work.
In any large statistical sample, there will always be clusters of results because random events don’t display the order of perfect distribution.
)
