Selective Aggression

What about in games where there’s not a lot of checking? I’ve played in some crazy live (limit) games where it’s four-bet six way and guys are five-betting with J5o. There’s not a lot of “Well, he called me, so now I’ll give up” going on.

Here’s a hand I played last night. I had two red eights in the BB in a wild 8/16 game (as described above). Three callers, the button raises, he’s playing about 75% of his hands and (re-)raising all of them, so I 3-bet, folded to him (surprised me), he 4-bets, I 5-bet, he calls. Flop is A54 all hearts. He bets and, as with all other hands he plays, he starts separating raising chips from his stack.

My question is: here’s a situation where the guy is not going to not-check. He’s the type of player to bet and raise the whole way with a gutshot and an overcard. But I really think I should be raising *more* often than against someone who checks to me a normal amount of the time (I think I have the best hand most of the time, btw).

VegasSocrates> I’ve played in some crazy live (limit) games where it’s four-bet six way and guys are five-betting with J5o.

It sounds like this is a group of “casino players”, i.e. people who treat poker no differently from slot machines (put your money in and you win if your cards come up). I would think that the only way to beat a game like that is to do a lot of pre-flop folding and play only when you have the goods. Suited connectors should be what you are looking for, since they play well in multi-way pots.

But then again I’m just a perpetual newbie so what do I know. I’d welcome comments/corrections…

This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to figure out. Been playing shorthanded for a bit now and it’s this exact topic that I feel is keeping me back from hitting my goal. If you could elaborate on more examples on this topic, I’d be all ears.

Sounds like the game I play in. Guys calling with all kinds of hands from any position. One hand I was involved in was A,J os. I raised 5 times the BB and got 4 callers. Flop comes J 7 4 all diamonds. I have top pair with the Ace of diamonds, and I’m first to act so I decide to go all in. I get two callers—kinda scared now but figured I had the best draw with a strong pair. First caller has Kd Js, second caller has Jh and 7h–two pair. Needless to say I lost. Was it that bad of a play to push all in? In loose-crazy games should I just check-call hands like this and value bet more with them? Any comments you can share would be helpful.

I agree that aggression has its value in any game. When you play online, you often find games loaded with aggression where someone who “checks” is regarded as a coward. I have found that the best way to counter aggression for aggression’s sake is simply to fold until I have outstanding cards and then bet hyper-aggressively *early*. Bullies don’t like to be left out of the action and will often go all in just to show how aggressive they can be. After you have taken most of their chips, they will chase you with even weaker hands to try to win it all back immediately. Eliminate this type of opponent when you have the odds in your favor. But, you must bet aggressively early and not give them a chance to draw and evaluate the cards before risking their stack.

SP:

As long as you’re playing against bullies who aren’t trying very hard to play well, you may be doing the right thing.

As you face more sophisticated bullies, you’ll find that they may bet quite often when they face weakness, but get out of the pot when someone else represents a good hand. In that case, you’ll want to play less straightforward in a couple of ways. First, you may find some great semibluffing opportunities, with check/raises or in-position raises. Of course getting the bully to bet your monster hands is good, but bluff-raising him without a monster hand is even better.

The second approach is trickier to use, but that’s just to check-call (i.e. slowplay) with many more hands, even marginal ones. Essentially you’re way ahead/way behind in a sense because the bully’s betting with a much broader range. If you can get him to bet two or three times, bluffing into your good one pair hands, then you can take down some nice pots. Of course you run a substantial risk of being outdrawn and not having an idea where you stand, but the bully will less often be betting hands with outs. (In other words, suppose the flop comes with two hearts but otherwise uncoordinated. A TAG would probably bet often with a set, an overpair, or a flush draw; a bully would bet often with much less than a flush draw. Therefore, your risk of letting him draw is less than your risk of letting a TAG draw at that board.)

Sorry my thoughts are a bit scattershot, but hopefully this is helpful….

AKQJ10:

Thanks for the thoughts.

The major point made in the article is that aggressive play can be very effective against the timid player who checks a lot. My previous post was only meant to address what seemed to be the aggressive for aggression’s sake type of play described by VegasSocrates and DDS.

I use the tactics you talk about as well. The key is to understand what kind of aggression you are facing.

Stage 1 Aggressive: will raise with anything. This is the type that I spoke of in my last post. They are hard to bluff since they don’t want to be outbet.

Stage 2 Aggressive: will raise aggressively but fold if they encounter resistance (unless they have a good hand). You spoke about these folks and how to deal with them.

Stage 3 Aggressive: will adapt their aggressiveness to the opponent and/or situation. These are the dangerous professional type players. The tactics described in the article fall into this category. There is no formula that will work here because their play is changing with the circumstances.

I think that we both are saying that the key to all of this is to understand the tactics being used by your opponent so that you can formulate a successful strategy.

Again, I certainly appreciated your comments and look forward to reading more of your thoughts.