Originally Posted by LimpinAintEZ

Or to show me that they can't be bluffed?

Originally Posted by thenonsequitur

I think this is the reason.

I think they're thinking to themselves something along the lines of "lucky bastard--90% of the time he's bluffing here and I would have caught it with my pair, I got unlucky enough to call the 10% they had something". And of course they think that same thing the nine out of ten times that they lose their stack looking up someone's monster with middle pair. And they use the one time in ten when they pick off a bluff with middle pair to reinforce this fallacy.

So when they "get unlucky" and call your push when you happen to have a monster, they want to prove that they made a good move picking off your probable bluff, and that it was just luck that you had a hand this time.

Originally Posted by Benoso

Great post.

A lot of players are far too passive, which is good news for me of course.

Nah, in all seriousness though, a lot of players need to grow some bigger balls.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

I'm obviously not a fan of passive play, but you're telling people to start bluffing. On loose tables, what's the point?
I can see a c-bet or a semibluff here and there, but not much more.

Why bluff people who will call anything down to the river? You stand to win small pots and get smacked in the head with reverse implied odds.

Originally Posted by LimpinAintEZ

my personal favorite is when i have a monster hand and the guy who paid me off with his whole stack shows me his middle pair as if he HAD to call with that hand - whats funny is they always WANT to show me what they called me with - I don't know why - To let me know for certain that they are idiots? Or to show me that they can't be bluffed? Whatever it is, I don't see how it could help them to let anyone know they will stack off with 2nd pair hands -

Originally Posted by biondino

DNuts - can I ask a favour? While I agree a certain other poster's strategy posts are too basic, too rigid and as aresult could hamstring them beyond the first few days, I think something important is missing here - you're assuming too much about the knowledge and "feel" of the average beginner.

Telling a newbie poker player to be aggressive ABSOLUTELY requires a clear definition of "good" aggression vs "bad" aggression - when to do it, how far to go, how to spot weakness (I have lost countless $$$ being aggro for the sake of it when I should have been considering position/oppo bets/oppo stats etc etc before doing so).

Aggression used at the wrong time and place - and a newcomer will have, initially, very little instinctive idea of when to do so correctly - is a FAR bigger spew than over-passivity during the first stages of learning. There's a fine but vital line between aggression and recklnessness. Would you mind adding another post that explores this?

Originally Posted by mrhappy333

can we see some examples of aggresiveness? I always wonder what hands I should be aggressive with? Is bottom pair good enough to re reaise someone? I never know, and I hate when I try to be aggressive and someone has a hand, and takes alot of my chips.

Originally Posted by johnnyBuz

what should you when you play the complete opposite way, overaggression? i do a lot of the things this post says aggressive players do well, but i give it back at the wrong times being "too aggressive" and not giving respect to raises, reraises, etc. because i think they are maybe making a stand or just bluffing.

i think if i fix that, that's the difference between my "break even" poker and me actually winning money.

Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot

Why is aggression good?

1. Bigger pots
2. Can win without showdown. (stealing equity)
3. Gain more information. Lose less with second best hand.

Aggression for the sake of aggression is no good. Understand the reasons behind your actions and chose your spots.