Ramping up the aggression....

So, I have been on a pretty good run lately at .05/.10 NL. Low variance and good returns. This weekend I decided to modify my betting aggression with the hope of increased returns or at least learning something. My plan was basically this, as soon as the pot got to the point where it was ~1/4-1/3 of my stack and I believed I had the best hand, I pushed all-in. What I learned was that reguardless of their odds, you will get called by some numnut (every time this weekend). Which is a good thing, theoretically.

This experiment resulted in adding 5 buyins to my BR followed by a painful sucking loss of 9 buyins... >85% of the time I was pushing as the favorite (the few exceptions being slowplayed low sets or higher overpairs KK vs AA etc) and getting sucked out on while, of course, never evening things up and sucking out on anyone. The majority of these suckouts occured when I had an overpair with a two-suited ragged board on the flop. I know that a weekend of play isn't a valid sample but I wanted to get your guys' opinion on playing this way... Just to ward off the tiltmongers, I did get slightly irritated towards the end but looking over my play, I didn't tilt or start leaking chips with silly suited hands.

Is this sort of play overaggressive/stupid or both?
Is this downturn just variance and should I expect the variance to be this harsh playing this way?
Am I overplaying my overpairs, should I only bet to limit pot odds and wait for a safe turn card to push?

If you think there is nothing wrong with how I was playing and that type of variance is to be expected, a 'STBY' of support would be great...

- sed

I don't like this play. You're taking your skill out of the equation past the flop. Especially when playing against people who will call no matter what, I think this leaves you far too open to them drawing out. If you want to do something like this, I'd bet enough to make calling on the flop against the odds and then push on the turn. You cut the chances of someone drawing out in half while (assuming they're going to call) not reducing your profit.

That said, over time if you have the best hand, this strategy will make money. I just think that it will make you less than if you rely on your skill.

Look at Rippy. He plays cards that many would consider utter crap preflop. But he wins - quite possibly more than anyone else here. Why? Because of his skill in post flop play.

- Jeffrey

I gotta agree with you. This type of strategy doesn't belong in the ring. Mid/late in a tournament is the correct place for it. I started out trying to slightly increase my aggression but ended up at the point I described. Spending the weekend going from tag to tagag to tight semi-maniac really gave me some perspective on what is most profitable and has the least variance for me in the ring.... While theoretically, it will be profitable, the variance just sucks.

I was happy with my ability to identify the times when I was ahead and my opponent was on a draw and put all my money in. Even though I ended up getting drawn out on way more than was reasonable, it was a good experience and gave me confidence for those tourney moves you have to make. I think that an increase in aggression will help my overall ring profitability but going over the top and not using all my skills is just stupid.

- sed