I find this interesting, but I'm also finding that these days about 80% of the table in tourneys are all playing aggressive; not saying they are all playing well, but there can be about 5-7 on a 9 ring table all trying to out-aggro each other, with few willing to lay down anything so this isn't working most of the time.
I admit I play micro stakes and FreeRolls, and maybe it changes at higher stakes (above $3) but I manage to make the money fairly frequently, even so. I'm sure this will be covered later, but I think many players these days read so much about aggressive play and think this means 'every hand' or 'every second hand' or 'never fold just get more aggressive', they are not choosing their moments and combining their aggression with all the other tools i.e strong starting hand, position, other players style, table personality, chip stack, etc.
Great article none the less, and good to know there is a 'neutral' and not just aggressive vs. passive.
Enjoying this course. Today I have a few freerolls to play and will use the aggression factor for more practice. And the great question " What doesnt he want me to do??" Although I have thrown those small feeler bets out and was waiting for someone to come over the top...lol. Would that be aggressive?
I have a question about a big stack play.
I understand that in the later stages and close to bubble big stack's pressure towards smaller stacks is wise and lucrative.
But what would you say Katie or Collin, how the big stack should control himself in the early stages, if the big stack has already tripled his size but everyone else still has over 100 BBs?
A great day two guys, Thankyou.
Having read the comments above I think it is important to remember that day two isn’t the only input on the course and there is a lot more to come, so making decisions based solely on what is learned in day two is an error of judgement. Day two is simply part of the whole course and must be taken in that context.
Looking forward to the rest of he course.
Thanks
BB
KJo Hand: From your reading I understood that you thought you were winning. I also understood that we are talking about aggression, I believe that a smaller bet would also be aggression. Let's ask the question, wouldn't it be interesting to bet less on the river to take a bigger pot or lose a smaller pot if the villain called?
Aggression should apply to all types of play? Cash tables, tournaments, sit & go, it costs me a lot to be aggressive, when I do it they make me 3bet and I do all in and they always beat me with weak hands.
Maybe it's because I don't know how to fold strong hands.
Thanks very much, and I appreciate the point you made in your post! Being aggressive generally is a very important aspect of being a winning poker player, however this does not mean we should be aggressive all the time. Thanks for putting that into context
Yes, a smaller bet would still fall into the category of being an aggressive action. Betting smaller, perhaps in the form of making a blocking bet, does present the slight complication that it is more likely you're raised than when you make a more standard sized bet. Of course this won't always happen but it is certainly something important to keep in mind--particularly in spots where we are looking to get some value from our hand but ideally want to avoid being raised.