Passive or Agressive...which is better?

So I played $50nl for 17,787 hands with a very passive style. Didn’t raise much pf and only bet when I had the goods. Didn’t bet my draws much either unless it was a very strong draw like an OESFD or OESD with two overs. Once they completed, I would bet them. Throw in an occasional tricky play with sooted connectors and this is the result:



Not too bad. Profitablility is not through the roof, but this is a very good rate considering the risk taken.

Then, decided to run an experiment and see if I played the next 10k hands or so more agressively, would it be more profitable? So, I changed it up and started to raise a lot more hands pf and c-bet more flops. Semi-bluffed a lot more, esp. with OESD, flush draw or even gutshot in some cases. Played more positionally aware poker and bet or raised with marginal hands if checked/weak bet to me. Lastly, loosened up my raising requirements considerably in CO and Button. Here is the results:



Not quite as large as a sample size, but certainly proves that good, aggressive poker beats the crap out of passive, conservative poker. Didn't tell you anything that you probably didn't already know, but I've never seen any data to prove it. Sure, this isn't conclusive data, but it's pretty darn compelling. What is interesting is that my W$SD and W$WSF is nearly identical. Not sure what that means but I would venture to guess that if you play more marginal hands and don't sacrifice any SD wins plus still win $ at the same rate WSF, you are doing pretty good.

Thoughts and feedback appreciated.

But I think sample size is too small. I guess this give some information
about passive/aggressive styles but I think you would need
at least 50 k hands to edit out the variance.

But everybody says that aggressive is goot

T.

Originally Posted by Turska

But I think sample size is too small. I guess this give some information
about passive/aggressive styles but I think you would need
at least 50 k hands to edit out the variance.

But everybody says that aggressive is goot

T.

Agreed on the sample size...this hardly a scientific experiment, but is better than just saying "agressive is better" (which is what I hear all the time). Not trying to knock people that say that--just wanted to see some data for myself and am sharing it with you all. It also at least gives some idea of how much better....

passive sucks.
only in certain sitautions do you go passive otherwise yeah, you guessed it, passive sucks

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

passive sucks.
only in certain sitautions do you go passive otherwise yeah, you guessed it, passive sucks

I only go passive only in two situations: 1. Flopped the nuts with little or no chance that anyone will suck out. 2. Against overly loose and agressive oponents...gets them to dig their own grave when you have a hand.

I love counterplay on certain tables and situations.
Yesterday 25 NL. Turska is dealt AdAc UTG. Button is maniac.

Turska calls 0,25
Someone in middle calls 0,25
Button raises to 1.5
SB,BB folds
Turska Calls 1.5
MP folds

Flop As,8s,6h

Turska checks
Button bets 4
Turska calls 4

Turn Ah

Turska checks

Button bets 8
Turska calls 8

River 10c

Turska checks
Button bets 13 and is allin
Turska calls

Button shows [6d,Jh] pair of sixes
Turska shows [Ad,Ac] four of kind Aces

Button disappears
Turska says: lmao

I don't see how going from a 14/5 to a 15/7 is much of a change.

Originally Posted by samsonite2100

I don't see how going from a 14/5 to a 15/7 is much of a change.

All I did was change my agressiveness and played basically the same hands I usually play. Therefore, I raised more hands preflop (thus the change from less than 5% to 7%) and my af went from .87 to 1.18. Trying to keep the variables to a minimum to have a clearer picture of how much more profitable aggression can be. That's all.

Neutral is the way to go. This way, you can take both the aggressive stacks and the passive stacks.