ISF's Easy guide to aggression!!!

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)

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

i like this post

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

very nice

Another good one ISF.

bookmarked.

yeah this is prolly ur best post

short and sweet, ty

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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:

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.

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?

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.

That looks about right Pelion, nj.

nice chart Pelion, very eye opening.

numbers make my eyes water

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

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.

Poker Forum

Join Our Poker Community!

Poker Forum Index

Short-Handed NL Hold'em

ISF's Easy guide to aggression!!!

Poker Forum Index

Short-Handed NL Hold'em

ISF's Easy guide to aggression!!!