In favor of obscene aggression

I got a little lucky here with that flop - not to mention running into the particular kind of calling station that always thinks big bets = bluffs, but there are plenty of those at $100 NL, I'm finding.


***** Hand History for Game 2235841774 *****
$100 NL Hold'em - Monday, June 20, 12:50:45 EDT 2005
Table Table 36850 (6 max) (Real Money)
Seat 6 is the button
Total number of players : 6
Seat 1: chimpminkey ( $120.1 )
Seat 2: jiige ( $41.95 )
Seat 3: tburd ( $292.7 )
Seat 4: AcesFilled ( $65.35 )
Seat 6: ShuG007 ( $187.3 )
Seat 5: stressball10 ( $100 )
chimpminkey posts small blind [$0.5].
jiige posts big blind [$1].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to stressball10 [ 9c Qh ]
tburd calls [$1].
AcesFilled folds.
stressball10 raises [$4].
ShuG007 calls [$4].
chimpminkey folds.
jiige folds.
tburd calls [$3].
** Dealing Flop ** [ Qs, 6h, 9d ]
tburd checks.
stressball10 bets [$12].
ShuG007 calls [$12].
tburd folds.
** Dealing Turn ** [ As ]
stressball10 bets [$35].
ShuG007 calls [$35].
** Dealing River ** [ 5s ]
stressball10 is all-In [$49]
ShuG007 calls [$49].
stressball10 shows [ 9c, Qh ] two pairs, queens and nines.
ShuG007 shows [ Ah, Th ] a pair of aces.
stressball10 wins $203.5 from the main pot with two pairs, queens and nines.

Did you have a read on this guy as a weak call station? The A on the turn is a scare card to both your hand (6A 9A and QA now beat you) and just about any hand that called the flop that doesn't have you beat (except fishy A high calls like what he actually did). Without a read, I would lean towards making a much smaller bet or even checking on the turn, then bet about half the pot on the river and hope a Q pays you off.

I had a pretty good read - his big stack had come in large part from two previous hands where he had called down some big bets with a flush draw in one case, and just overcards in another. This time I didn't like the ace at all, so I figured it might be my last chance at the hand - fire out a nasty bet and see how he responded. It was interesting; he paused a while (ten seconds or so) and then just called. I decided he had ace-something or queen-something (maybe QK) and was then just hoping the river wouldn't connect with his kicker. Of course, with that much money in the pot I couldn't fold on the river anyway, unless maybe another ace or the king of spades came down.

Here's another good one. This guy was laughing ("LOL!") at every bad beat at the table, even the ones that others had against him. Not much laughter after this one though.



***** Hand History for Game 2236556103 *****
$100 NL Hold'em - Monday, June 20, 16:22:22 EDT 2005
Table Table 37033 (6 max) (Real Money)
Seat 5 is the button
Total number of players : 6
Seat 3: asiupang ( $108.2 )
Seat 4: Galas11 ( $347.5 )
Seat 6: AcesFilled ( $93.1 )
Seat 2: stressball10 ( $103.85 )
Seat 5: gambleranon ( $85.8 )
Seat 1: HornyRaiser ( $49.5 )
AcesFilled posts small blind [$0.5].
HornyRaiser posts big blind [$1].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to stressball10 [ 6c 5c ]
stressball10 raises [$2].
asiupang calls [$2].
gambleranon calls [$2].
AcesFilled folds.
HornyRaiser calls [$1].
** Dealing Flop ** [ 4d, 3s, 2d ]
HornyRaiser bets [$5].
stressball10 raises [$50].
asiupang calls [$50].
gambleranon folds.
HornyRaiser folds.
** Dealing Turn ** [ 7c ]
stressball10 is all-In [$51.85]
asiupang calls [$51.85].
** Dealing River ** [ Kh ]
stressball10 shows [ 6c, 5c ] a straight, three to seven.
asiupang shows [ 3d, 6d ] a pair of threes.
stressball10 wins $215.2 from the main pot with a straight, three to seven.


...I'm learning that if you can handle the variance, poker played for stacks is quite a rush. I'm not saying go all in with every decent hand, but against the right players & with the right cards, raising a lot and betting super-aggressively can net serious rewards.

Good job Dale, have you always played this super aggresive, or have you just recently adapted this style? (Looks a lot like Smackin...) You two are the only ones on here that I've seen with similar styles in 6 Max (at least that post HH's - i need to post some myself). I would LOVE to get some insight from you both on things like your starting hands, how often you limp (if you do at all), how many flops you see, and the major differences between 25, 50, and 100 NL. Even better I may want to find a table you're playing at and just watch for a while...

For me the aggression comes and goes. Some tables this style is appropriate and profitable, and other tables it's not so much. I would say my regular style is not quite this aggressive. I like to limp a lot of low to mid pairs and suited connectors/gappers to try to take a lot of chips off more aggressive players. If I can sit at a 6max table with 3-4 weak/tights and 1-2 loose/aggressives, I'm happiest. Then I can play a pretty standard TAgg game with the aforementioned limping mixed in, and do very well without much risk.

At some tables I will open up like this though. Usually any table with 2 or more big fat calling stations invites this style of play. Why not bet huge when they're still going to call? When I'm playing this way I end up playing for stacks a lot and going all in with top pair against flush draws, or my overpair vs. somebody's top pair, things like that. A lot of times I'm risking a 20-40% chance of someone sucking out on me. The variance can be a little daunting.

Even when I'm playing more aggressively I'm still not as aggressive as Smackin pre-flop. I save most of it for post-flop play. Pre-flop I will raise basically with any two face cards, any pocket pair 8s or higher, and I'll raise suited connectors/gappers maybe 1/3 or 1/2 of the time to keep the pots juicy and my table image in good shape. There's a more complete post in this forum about starting hands you might want to look at... that gets into serious detail about the hands I like to play and how I like to play them, but that was from my normal style, not the aggressive approach. Basically I play the same hands but I raise about 20% more when I'm playing like this. The really big change is after the flop - I will bet like a maniac if I think the idiots stand any chance of calling me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dalecooper

For me the aggression comes and goes. Some tables this style is appropriate and profitable, and other tables it's not so much. I would say my regular style is not quite this aggressive. I like to limp a lot of low to mid pairs and suited connectors/gappers to try to take a lot of chips off more aggressive players. If I can sit at a 6max table with 3-4 weak/tights and 1-2 loose/aggressives, I'm happiest. Then I can play a pretty standard TAgg game with the aforementioned limping mixed in, and do very well without much risk.

At some tables I will open up like this though. Usually any table with 2 or more big fat calling stations invites this style of play. Why not bet huge when they're still going to call? When I'm playing this way I end up playing for stacks a lot and going all in with top pair against flush draws, or my overpair vs. somebody's top pair, things like that. A lot of times I'm risking a 20-40% chance of someone sucking out on me. The variance can be a little daunting.

Even when I'm playing more aggressively I'm still not as aggressive as Smackin pre-flop. I save most of it for post-flop play. Pre-flop I will raise basically with any two face cards, any pocket pair 8s or higher, and I'll raise suited connectors/gappers maybe 1/3 or 1/2 of the time to keep the pots juicy and my table image in good shape. There's a more complete post in this forum about starting hands you might want to look at... that gets into serious detail about the hands I like to play and how I like to play them, but that was from my normal style, not the aggressive approach. Basically I play the same hands but I raise about 20% more when I'm playing like this. The really big change is after the flop - I will bet like a maniac if I think the idiots stand any chance of calling me.

---

Beautiful. I was trying to write this out as well, but dale put it into much better words. Personally, I think you can get away with playing a C grade preflop game here as long as you know how to raise hell on the flop. Postflop for me is mostly limited to raising or folding. (Calls are for draws and when you hold the flush on a paired board at the river.) Anyways, people accuse me of stealing all the time because they get sick of me raising, but I usually only do it when I think my hand is good, otherwise I'm folding. There's not a whole lot of need to be extra tricky here unless you see obvious weakness.

Also, I may be a little tigher preflop than you guys imagine. Dale pretty much described my raising hands, dependent on position. Throw in raises with decent suited aces and small pocket pairs in LP after its been folded around, and you're pretty close to having me pinned as well.

Thanks guys, I play almost exactly the way you both described, and I've realized that 6max is all about post flop play, since most pots seem to be un-raised pre-flop anyway. My only problem (I think) may be limping too much, and not raising enough pre-flop, but I think I've got a good balance together right now, as I'm running hot as hell at the moment. So what differences do you guys notice between the 25/50/100 NL games? I'm properly bankrolled for 50, (which I do play sometimes) but I can't seem to take myself out of the aquarium (25NL), I guess I'm too comfortable. I find that there is a HUGE mix between sharks and fish at 25NL, and you never know what you're up against. (I just LOVE pretending to be a fish, and busting up some of the sharks) I'm just wondering if 50 or 100 will have more "consistent" types of opponents, or what type of play to expect. I am also the king of buying in as a medium stack, so I may be able to get away with playing some 100 as well.

The levels are definitely different. At 50 NL the play is generally tight and there is a little more raising pre-flop. It's pretty easy to make money in a slow but steady fashion by playing ABC poker. At 100 NL things are pretty aggressive and wild; a lot of pots are raised pre-flop and you either have to be aggressive yourself, or be willing to always play the snake in the grass. At 50, most bets mean the bettor has the goods (except for the standard continuation bets on the flop from a raiser). At 100, you have to seriously consider the possibility of a bluff, especially if it's a big bet on the river. It's almost common practice for people to bet busted draws. I'm not saying call every big bet, but if you know an opponent is capable of it, mix in some calls to keep them honest.

A few interesting things about 100:

- People call continuation bets all the time with marginal holdings. Smackin and I have learned this the hard way, so expect it. You raise with AK pre-flop and get called, the flop comes out 379 rainbow, you bet 3/4 of the pot - and get called. This happens a LOT. To the degree that I don't use continuation bets as much as I did in the lower stakes games. I sometimes check my unimproved AK. Also, my continuation bets now tend to be an all or nothing affair; I either bet the full pot or I just check. There are plenty of guys at this level calling your pre-flop raises with 78o and thinking that middle pair is good. Or they have a low pocket pair and just call you to the river with it, regardless of the board. It's an epidemic. At 25 or 50 NL, continuation bets almost always result in folds; at 100 it's unpredictable.

- Ace-anything is a raising hand for a lot of guys at this level, especially in position. They use position a lot and raise Ax, Kx, any pocket pair, you name it. You either have to be willing to call these raises with decent hands like ATo, or you have to re-raise with hands you'd normally consider just a calling hand with a raise ahead of you (AQ, AJ, pocket 9s, stuff like that).

- There is a funny dynamic of overbetting and stupid calling. There are fish calling any bet with any draw, up to and including obvious flush draws and gutshots (I never saw as many players chasing gutshots at the lower levels). The decent players have reacted to this by overbetting the pot every time they have a decent hand; you'll see people betting $5 on a $2 pot with middle pair, or $15 on a $10 pot with overcards. It's crazy. Then the final part of the circle is that a lot of players get sick of the overbetting and call with their draws out of obstinence (I've been guilty of it myself, when I had a good straight draw or something and someone was aggressively overbetting an obvious top pair). All in all, there's a lot of really weird chasing and heavy betting going on, and very often you'll find yourself putting half your stack up for grabs on a fairly routine hand. As a result, variance at this level can be really high. Implied odds become more important. Chasing flushes is still dumb but straights can pay off very handsomely because of all the aggression.

- Everybody min-raises and check-raises flush draws. Let's say the board comes out with two spades on it and you have top pair, and you bet $2 on a $3 pot. Then some guy raises you another $2, possibly after checking before you. This man has two spades in his hand. That will be true like 70% of the time, maybe more. I find myself re-raising decent hands aggressively all the time just to extract money from the flush chasers. If they don't hit it on the turn, I'm often going all in to make them pay.

Awesome, thanks for the enlightenment... actually 100NL looks pretty enticing, since people are willing to throw money around on draws and marginal hands, when I almost always play solid hands and rarely bluff. (Lets just hope I don't run into a nightmare bad run like you did when you first moved up... ;) ) I think I may take a peek later when I have some time. Thanks again for all your words of wisdom, very insightful information.

It can be very profitable, but it's also very swingy. And I think you'll find that you have to mix it up a little more to keep your head above water. Some tables are so ludicrously aggressive that it's easy to get pushed around when you actually have the best hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dalecooper

Some tables are so ludicrously aggressive that it's easy to get pushed around when you actually have the best hand.

---

Man, you're making my mouth water...

Against these types of opponents, I tend to not bother putting the other player on a hand based on the amount they are betting, but rather just play the relative strenght of my own hand against the odds that they have a better hand than mine. But I can see how I can get into trouble if I'm not properly bankrolled, it might cause me to play too timid...

I guess the snake in the grass approach will work best in this situation? Damn I love busting up Laggs... nice warning. I may hold off for a little longer, or use the money from my next SNG win as a sort of "reward" to play 100NL, and just pretend it's money I don't care about. (I tend to play these little mind games with myself... oh well whatever works i guess)

If you can play laggy with confidence, then I would play 50NL like that. If you do this, your stay at the 50's will be a short one and you'll be ready for 100NL.

Dale is correct that continuation bets are a losing proposition against many players, because they will usually call with their pocket 2's and then bet the turn if you slow down. You just have to read them and play according to each player. Some will call every flop bet, but fold every turn if you fire the 2nd barrel. Some will never fold. And then some will have real hands so its a pain in the ass sometimes.

I also see a lot of river bluffing on busted flush draws. I don't really get into situations where I'm calling what I suspect are busted flush draws because I am the one pushing them around all the way down to the river. If they have the balls to make a huge raise on the river with nothing, and I have a weak hand, then I'll give em credit and let it go, depending on the board. I absolutely hate being the one calling.


I'm not seeing the aggression as much as dale, however. There are definitely some maniacs running around at 100NL, but for the most part I see two types of people. One is the passive calling station who plays too many hands and chases everything. The other is the TAG. The tags are easiest to deal with because they play too few hands and only come alive when they have you beat. The rest of the time you can steal their pots. The calling stations are easy as long as you have a hand, but it can be nerve wracking wondering if you're being slowplayed.

Oh, and look out for slowplayed AA and KK in multiway pots. It happens a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dalecooper

- People call continuation bets all the time with marginal holdings. Smackin and I have learned this the hard way, so expect it. You raise with AK pre-flop and get called, the flop comes out 379 rainbow, you bet 3/4 of the pot - and get called. This happens a LOT. To the degree that I don't use continuation bets as much as I did in the lower stakes games. I sometimes check my unimproved AK. Also, my continuation bets now tend to be an all or nothing affair; I either bet the full pot or I just check. There are plenty of guys at this level calling your pre-flop raises with 78o and thinking that middle pair is good. Or they have a low pocket pair and just call you to the river with it, regardless of the board. It's an epidemic. At 25 or 50 NL, continuation bets almost always result in folds; at 100 it's unpredictable.

---

To combat the Call the Way Down (TM), I also have found that betting the pot as the continuation bet is the way to go. When it's heads up on the flop for an $8 pot, betting 5-6 just isn't gonna get the point across. There is something magical about a pot bet on the flop that gets people's attention, esp. if there are 3 players instead of headsup. You're deadon right about this.

I have also learned that the Call the Way Down (TM) happens more @ $100NL, but I have also learned that when in Rome... I suggest calling down opponents occasionally on the cheap. Dale, you may flip out on this one because I know it's a pet peeve of yours, but bear with me. You can learn SO much about a player's post flop play by how he deals w/ calling down, and in what scenarios he's willing to put up with it. I do this because I want to know which players I can push hard and which ones I need to be more skillful and deceptive against. Trust me, I'm not thrilled that I'm doing it any more than you are that I'm doing it to you. But, if I KNOW that an opp has called down before w/ a marginal piece of the flop and I happen to flop a monster on him next time, I'm gonna expect to win go $4 on $8, $8 on $16 and $10-15 on $32 for a total showdown pot of about $50. That makes my call down back and then some, but more importantly sets me up again for the same play in the future against the same caller. Furthermore, if I have a marginal hand myself against him heads up later and I'm leading out, I will consider the pot bet right off the bet to shake him off his own better hand.

Finally, by showing a pair of threes at the end of a calldown, you're gonna encourage others to try the 1/2 pot bait technique on you in future hands w/ their TPTK, and you can hit these fools back hard on the river when you have 2pr or a set for a nice little raise for 1/2 pot (which at this point is aroun $25-30). They nearly ALWAYS call back that raise on the end because of your idiot play earlier in the game. Usually a raise on the end like that and they think, 'well, shit, i don't have it so i fold.' but here of course they think they do have it and of course, they do not and you get paid back for that earlier 'discovery' Call the Way Down (TM) (Of course this only plays well on uncoordinated boards w/ very little draw factor).

Lemme know what you think of this reasoning and approach. I have been having a little success with it, and I know you HATE it, so I'd be interested in hearing your other side. I'm up for being convinced in your favor, but I think it's been working out ok for me over the course of a long sitdown w/ opps.

Actually I'm all about that, alias. The calldown drives me crazy when it's used against me, but that generally means it has some validity as a tactic. (Another thing that drives me crazy is an opponent that constantly bets and raises small amounts, whether they have anything or not, and that's useful in its own way too.) Since I "discovered" the calldown after moving up to 100 NL, I have started employing it sometimes myself. It's especially effective sometimes because so many players now employ continuation bets any time they raise pre-flop; when you have that second pair or top pair on a garbagey board, sometimes you want Mr. Aggressive to donate some money to you. And it frustrates him, makes him decelerate a bit because he starts to think he can't force you out of the pot. Or he goes the other way and starts betting into you more aggressively, and then as soon as you get a monster you can really get paid off.

I don't favor constantly calling down as a good tactic, but in measured doses & against particular aggressive players, it's very useful. It has been bothering me because there's so much of it at my current level, and it's hard to play against - as a result I am mixing in check/folds with my regular bets and continuation bets. Any opponent that is somewhat aware (and a lot of them are, though you might think otherwise) will note that you sometimes check the flop after raising, and then when you fire out a bet it becomes more meaningful. I would say that at 50 NL I would always continuation bet after a raise, unless four people saw the flop or something; now, at the 100 level, I continuation bet maybe half the time, even in heads up situations. To further confuse the issue, I sometimes check/call or check/raise with top pair after raising pre-flop. You have to be more deceptive at this level to keep pace with all the other liars and swindlers. ;)

OK, good, glad to hear we're on the same page with this. Thanks for the followup.