The Psychology of Waning Aggression

[JeffreyGB]

I've seen a number of posts where people compared aggro stats - usually a less experienced player asking for advice on his numbers from someone with more experience. Very frequently, the student shows numbers of increasing aggression while the poker-sage shows decreasing aggression - something like:

Student:
Flop 2.5
Turn 3.1
River 4.3

Poker-sage:
Flop 4.8
Turn 3.2
River 2.1

I just had an epiphany as to why this difference exists. An experienced player learns to be more and more cautious of his raises being called. Thus when he's bet hard on the flop and turn, he may check behind on the river, just in case. The student, however, may not have learned this lesson. Further, if a bluff is possible, I think it much more likely that an experienced player will pick up on this and pull it off earlier in the hand. Many students tend to wait for a significant display of weakness before trying for a pot wherein they don't expect to have the best hand.

Those are my thoughts...I've been more the student in that scenario than the sage. Is it better to try to pull bluffs earlier in the hand? Too transparent to pull them late? How often do you plop down the continuation bet after raising preflop and missing? Are there often problems with people calling/reraising such a bet when they otherwise wouldn't (and would have folded to the same bet on the turn)?

One thing I noticed this weekend is that I don't tend to play a continuation bet on a flop that I missed, especially if I'm out of position. Part of that is simply wanting to see what if my opponents hit anything and part of it is a voice in me that says "betting this flop is only going to look like a continuation bet, thus giving you callers and opening the door for big aggro players to try a reraise-steal." Do you fold to such a reraise? Rely on reads? How do you proceed on subsequent streets assuming you don't hit?

[SmackinYaUp]

Amazing, you werent lying! I cant wait to see the replies to both of our posts

[jmontis]

depends on the flop and number of people in the pot for me. Bluffing aggressively in early position with opponents waiting to act, is not wise.

[dsaxton]

Part of it is probably because good players generally bet to limit pot odds, and therefore know that a call from an opponent is often indicative of some kind of strength. So, a good player will tend to slow down when he's being called (unless he has a huge hand which can hold up despite his opponents strength, or is semi-bluffing with a big draw).

In general, it's probably best to bluff earlier in a hand because your opponents hand will have had less of a chance to develop, but it depends on the exact nature of the situation. For example, say you put your opponent on a large pair before the flop. The flop comes J, 10, 4 with two spades. In this case, you'd probably have more success bluffing later in the hand by representing a flush or straight than by trying to push him out on the flop. But, in general, when your opponent doesn't have a made hand before the flop, it is probably better to bluff earlier than later for the aforementioned reason. It really depends on where you suspect your opponents hand is in its development.

I don't think an experienced player needs a "show" of weakness in order to execute a bluff early in a hand. His reasoning can just be the statistical fact that in holdem players usually have next to nothing on the flop.

[studboyjoe]

the type of table I'm playing is one of the key factors to me. In a passive game, I deliberately show aggression, which means a higher % of PF raises and almost always continuation bets to those raises even if I totally miss the flop. I slow down only when I'm reraised. To paraphrase Doyle Brunson, if a table says "take it, stud" then I'm frequently going to do so. They will get sick of it sooner or later, but by then I've built a very healthy stack. Even then, I will win hands that actually can win on their own merit. Having said the above, someone will beat me with the nuts from time to time. I could be vulnerable to a bluff reraise, but that's uncommon at passive tables.

When a table is aggressive, I play way tighter but no less aggressively when I do play a hand. I play
closer to "poker book" strategy, both pre and post flop. This demands discipline and patience and I actually enjoy the challenge an aggressive table present.

I agree completely with the early bluff strategy that sax espouses. I'm rarely a river bluffer unless I think someone was chasing the same busted draw I was. The problem with bluffing later when you put your opponent on a big PP with J/10/4 is that
it's never free to get to the river to execute that bluff.

[ChezJ]

just a pure speculative thought here, as i'm not very experienced with NL.

i would think that good players would be better larger pre flop and on the flop because they have hands they want to protect and don't want to be called. on the turn and river i would expect their bets to decrease because if they are still in the hand, they usually have made hands and WANT to get called.

ChezJ

[JeffreyGB]

just a pure speculative thought here, as i'm not very experienced with NL.

i would think that good players would be better larger pre flop and on the flop because they have hands they want to protect and don't want to be called. on the turn and river i would expect their bets to decrease because if they are still in the hand, they usually have made hands and WANT to get called.

ChezJ

Possibly, except that I believe aggro is figured by what the action is (check/call/fold) rather than by amount. Given the work I'm doing on PT, I should be able to say that as a certainty, but I'll leave a 25% doubt, since I can't be certain.

[wobbler]

yes, aggression factor is calculated as: (Raise % + Bet %) / Call %
in NL I think it would make sense to factor in bet sizes, but PT is geared more towards limit, unfortunately

[richardwe]

I always try to change my tactics when the game develops. This way my opponent cant get a track of my game. Sometimes I play big Pre flop and sometimes Big after the River has fallen.

Most important for me is what kind of players are calling and bettin, before makin any aggresive moves myself.

[JeffreyGB]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about (well, one part of it). Would experienced players have raised earlier? Checked the river as well? It's this type of play that makes my later streets show higher aggro numbers (as well as bluffs with similar passivity at the table).

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ Hero (9 handed) converter

MP2 ($25.2)
MP3 ($48.35)
CO ($62.2)
Button ($116.45)
SB ($49)
Hero ($30.4)
UTG ($31.85)
UTG+1 ($44)
MP1 ($123.75)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 5, 5. SB posts a blind of $0.25.
UTG calls $0.50, UTG+1 calls $0.50, MP1 calls $0.50, MP2 calls $0.50, 3 folds, SB (poster) completes, Hero checks.

Flop: ($3) 2, A, Q (6 players)
SB checks, Hero checks, UTG checks, UTG+1 checks, MP1 checks, MP2 checks.

Turn: ($3) K (6 players)
SB checks, Hero checks, UTG checks, UTG+1 checks, MP1 checks, MP2 checks.

River: ($3) 3 (6 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $2, UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, SB folds.

Final Pot: $5

[hagakure]

An experienced player would say it would depend on the table texture, but I would hope they wouldn't raise earlier.

In my opinion, Hero was certainly in no position to raise after the flop, acting too early to consider it after the turn, and did it after the river when he was pretty damn sure he wasnt beat since another overcard didnt come out on the river. Also, since the river didnt pair with anything on the board.

I think they bet as soon as they should have.

[koolmoe]

One of the biggest reasons for slowing down on the river with a hand like TPTK is that draws are either made or aren't. If they've made their draw, they'll raise you. If they haven't they'll fold to any bet. Also, if you check the river intending to call, you can often induce a bluff against aggressive players with a busted draw.

You have to balance this against value betting the river, however. What constitutes a value bet is highly dependent on your opponent's playing style.

[storm75m]

One thing I noticed this weekend is that I don't tend to play a continuation bet on a flop that I missed, especially if I'm out of position. Part of that is simply wanting to see what if my opponents hit anything and part of it is a voice in me that says "betting this flop is only going to look like a continuation bet, thus giving you callers and opening the door for big aggro players to try a reraise-steal." Do you fold to such a reraise? Rely on reads? How do you proceed on subsequent streets assuming you don't hit?

This IMHO, is one of the trickiest parts of the game... I read a good article on 2+2 recently about playing over-cards on the late streets, it gives some good examples. Check it out. I think the continuation bet only looks too obvious if the flop is all low cards, and honestly, I still make the continuation bet anyway, because most of the time, people don't want to throw away money just to look you up. If they do, then it's easy, check/fold. I always make the continuation bet, especially if there's paint showing. Can't play worried or timid about "what-if" situations... I don't have exact numbers, but I'm sure many more have folded at the missed continuation bet than attempted to call down. (This is with a very tight table image, which is somewhat important.) My .02

[drmcboy]

Everything here is right on.

I don't get people who raise and then check the flop regularly, it's just bad play IMHO. Sure if the flop is "doyle scary' QJ10s when you have AA or really ugly 1055r maybe I'll check, otherwise I'm betting. What is the alternative - only bet when you make a hand? Good luck making money that way. Even on the ugly flop above I'll probably bet if I have a hand, I may check there if I raised with nothing or missed my AK or whatever - but only because a bet here LOOKs like a steal, as said above. 9 out of 10 flops that I raised Pre flop when I don't bet it's not because I'm scared of the flop, it's because I know no one will believe I made something out of the 782r board. Here you can check and hope you get on over to bluff at on the turn.


'Do you fold to such a reraise? Rely on reads? '

Usually the first time you re raise me after I miss the pot is yours, but you'll have to sweat while I stare at my crappy hand. One play I find works if you have doubts (better to be in EP here) - say your bet was 7.5, guy makes it 15 to go (the min raise, which BTW I hate). A lot of times I'll call here then stuff the 15 right back in their face, regardless of the turn card.

If it flop re raise happens a couple times it's time to shift gears a bit and hope you can pick up a hand... at least against the guy who is re raising.

[thestrokes]

One of the biggest reasons for slowing down on the river with a hand like TPTK is that draws are either made or aren't. If they've made their draw, they'll raise you. If they haven't they'll fold to any bet. Also, if you check the river intending to call, you can often induce a bluff against aggressive players with a busted draw.

The first 3 sentences make perfect sense, and are very simple, yet very true. But i dont understand the last sentence. You check in front and they bet and you fold, according to the first part of the paragraph because you know they made their draw. But for the second part of the paragraph you check in front they bet and you call/raise becasue you believe it is a bluff. How do you tell the difference here? Please explain.