Excessive Aggression - Page 3

You called with king-jack? You’re a terrible player!

haha that made me laugh, <3 Tony G

you can bluff bluffers, its profitable, but u cant leave them room to re-bluff you so you gotta do it hard or u will fuck yourself

for example this player was a LAG with a 4.3ish agg factor

Submitted by : Baalim

PokerStars Game #9391158378: Hold'em No Limit ($1/$2) - 2007/04/12 - 21:13:43 (ET)
Table 'Nephthys IV' 6-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: BustBest90 ($205.15 in chips)
Seat 2: gspot355 ($192.80 in chips)
Seat 3: Baalim ($198 in chips)
Seat 4: jester510 ($60.70 in chips)
Seat 5: nothin2gein ($92 in chips)
Seat 6: Redfishz ($162.10 in chips)
Baalim : posts small blind $1
jester510: posts big blind $2

Holecards
Dealt to Baalim
nothin2gein: folds
Redfishz: folds
BustBest90: folds
gspot355: raises $5 to $7
Baalim : raises $19 to $26
jester510: folds
gspot355: calls $19

Flop (Pot : $54)

   
Baalim : checks
gspot355: bets $38
Baalim : raises $134 to $172 and is all-in
gspot355: folds
Baalim collected $127 from pot
Baalim : doesn't show hand

Summary
Total pot $130 | Rake $3
Board  
Seat 1: BustBest90 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: gspot355 (button) folded on the Flop
Seat 3: Baalim (small blind) collected ($127)
Seat 4: jester510 (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 5: nothin2gein folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Redfishz folded before Flop (didn't bet)

yeah my reasoning about not bluffing bluffers is this:

1. as shown below, you obviously cannot bluff raise carrotsnake off of a fucking horrible piece of shit hand unless you just shove outright. if you do that, it's a pretty huge risk for a fairly small reward. against the right extreme of monkey, it's profitable i guess, but not that much so? depends on some frequencies, but it's clear both how this CAN be profitable and how it's difficult to know whether it is in the first place.
2. like baal said, if you bluff and leave them room to rebluff, you'll get rebluffed.
3. like i mentioned, a maniac lagtard doesn't fold a mediocre hand. he HAS to be on a PURE bluff for YOUR bluff to be effective, otherwise he's at least SOMEWHAT competent (and in general, i'm talking about playing against complete incompetents).

surely roman is right and clearly someone who is bluffing constantly can be rebluffed profitably. but the success % of a rebluff is probably very low against most idiot lagtards, unless you're risking a huge amount to make the rebluff, in which case the frequency with which they call with a mediocre hand will hurt you a lot.

i definitely agree that bluffing bluffers is a good idea and should be carefully examined, but look below at the kind of geek you're trying to bluff...

Submitted by : [vital]Myth

POKERSTARS GAME #9237537528: HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($1/$2) - 2007/04/03 - 19:52:25 (ET)
Table 'Thia IV' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: Lazar2 ($233.10 in chips)
Seat 2: carrotsnake ($399 in chips)
Seat 3: 20 Buck Spin ($203.70 in chips)
Seat 4: umpa21 ($194 in chips)
Seat 5: JonnyCosMo ($199.90 in chips)
Seat 6: Filthy999 ($306.90 in chips)
carrotsnake: posts small blind $1
20 Buck Spin: posts big blind $2

Holecards(Odds)
Dealt to JonnyCosMo
umpa21: folds
JonnyCosMo : folds
Filthy999: raises $6 to $8
Lazar2: folds
carrotsnake: raises $19 to $27
20 Buck Spin: folds
Filthy999: calls $19

Flop(Odds) (Pot : $56)

   
carrotsnake: bets $37
Filthy999: raises $123 to $160
carrotsnake: raises $212 to $372 and is all-in
Filthy999: calls $119.90 and is all-in

Turn(Odds) (Pot : $800)

   

River (Pot : $800)

   

Showdown
carrotsnake: shows (two pair, Jacks and Sevens)
Filthy999: shows (two pair, Aces and Jacks)
Filthy999 collected $612.80 from pot

Summary
Total pot $615.80 | Rake $3
Board  
Seat 1: Lazar2 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: carrotsnake (small blind) showed and lost with two pair, Jacks and Sevens
Seat 3: 20 Buck Spin (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: umpa21 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: JonnyCosMo folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Filthy999 showed and won ($612.80) with two pair, Aces and Jacks

awesome article, i think i've been playing way too aggro recently and i'm being punished for it with a big downswing...
i have to read this again and rethink about my game.
great article myth, much <3

cool stuff

i'm a fan of mkaing big hands look like bluffs

Submitted by : whaackum

POKERSTARS GAME #8429404549: HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($0.50/$1.00) - 2007/02/13 - 21:29:34 (ET)
Table 'Dvorak' 9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: Whaack 'Um ($98 in chips)
Seat 2: PreRex ($58.50 in chips)
Seat 3: cjcplayer ($80.05 in chips)
Seat 5: Doc1033 ($34.50 in chips)
Seat 6: Slimsilver ($52.65 in chips)
Seat 7: GIL307 ($39 in chips)
Seat 8: GoIrish89 ($99 in chips)
Seat 9: Partuzza ($93.65 in chips)
Slimsilver: posts small blind $0.50
GIL307: posts big blind $1
Tuco: sits out

Holecards
Dealt to WhaackUm
GoIrish89: raises $2 to $3
Partuzza: calls $3
Whaack 'Um: raises $9 to $12
PreRex: folds
cjcplayer: folds
Doc1033: folds
Slimsilver: folds
GIL307: folds
GoIrish89: folds
Partuzza: calls $9

Flop (Pot : $28.5)

   
Partuzza: checks
Whaack 'Um: bets $12
Partuzza: calls $12

Turn (Pot : $52.5)

   
Partuzza: checks
Whaack 'Um: bets $12
Partuzza: raises $57.65 to $69.65 and is all-in
Whaack 'Um: calls $57.65

River (Pot : $191.8)

   

Showdown
Partuzza: shows (a straight, Four to Eight)
Whaack 'Um: shows (a flush, Ace high)
Whaack 'Um collected $188.80 from pot

Summary
Total pot $191.80 | Rake $3
Board  
Seat 1: Whaack 'Um showed and won ($188.80) with a flush, Ace high
Seat 2: PreRex folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: cjcplayer folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: Doc1033 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Slimsilver (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 7: GIL307 (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 8: GoIrish89 folded before Flop
Seat 9: Partuzza showed and lost with a straight, Four to Eight

nice read
good job

myth, firstly that example is horrible. Trying to bluff for 120 more in a reraised pot that had over 600 in it is plain maniacal.

One of the main reasons that bluffing bluffers is avoided by most is because it is veryyyy scary. If the guy has anything half decent ur getting stacked usually, and if he doesnt, ur winning a medium sized pot. However, u cant deny how many opportunities exist to pick up free money where the guy would have to be a psychic to put you on a bluff. If you are finding it impossible to bluff a LAG, it is because either u dont know him well enough, or your metagame is off. The one dangerous thing you advocated is the "rarely bluff, slowplay big hand" method of beating LAGs. The truth is, that strategy will only work against the worst and 'monkiest' LAGs. There are a lot of pitfalls associated with that style including becoming too predictabe, not being able to bluff almost ever without floating (which is the worst against LAGs cause they just keep firing), and often losing action versus top pair and twopair hands because you failed to make the pot bigger on earlier streets.

just some food for thought, i don't know how much deeper i can delve on this subject here without revealing intimate parts of my game...

first off, congrats on the recent WPT finish, and thank you very much for this article, extremely well written, easy to read and understand. this is going to help me alot i have alot of trouble against players like this.

thanks!

awesome article, thanks!

cool article

awesome article, thx

<3<3<3 you guys!

On April 13 2007 06:41 Roman wrote: myth, firstly that example is horrible. Trying to bluff for 120 more in a reraised pot that had over 600 in it is plain maniacal. One of the main reasons that bluffing bluffers is avoided by most is because it is veryyyy scary. If the guy has anything half decent ur getting stacked usually, and if he doesnt, ur winning a medium sized pot. However, u cant deny how many opportunities exist to pick up free money where the guy would have to be a psychic to put you on a bluff. If you are finding it impossible to bluff a LAG, it is because either u dont know him well enough, or your metagame is off. The one dangerous thing you advocated is the "rarely bluff, slowplay big hand" method of beating LAGs. The truth is, that strategy will only work against the worst and 'monkiest' LAGs. There are a lot of pitfalls associated with that style including becoming too predictabe, not being able to bluff almost ever without floating (which is the worst against LAGs cause they just keep firing), and often losing action versus top pair and twopair hands because you failed to make the pot bigger on earlier streets. just some food for thought, i don't know how much deeper i can delve on this subject here without revealing intimate parts of my game...

great points. the example though, was meant to ask...what if Filthy had been trying to bluff carrot on that board? I know carrot obviously made an absolutely insane, hugely -EV bluff here...but carrot is the kind of LAG i'm trying to combat, and this is why i said rarely bluff and often slowplay. but yeah, you're right in these points, and i think they're sufficiently important that i'm gonna edit my article and add them if that's ok?

tyty for input

On April 13 2007 07:56 RavaGe wrote: first off, congrats on the recent WPT finish, and thank you very much for this article, extremely well written, easy to read and understand. this is going to help me alot i have alot of trouble against players like this. thanks!

uhh, i didn't do anything in WPT. that was mig but...CORWIN FIHTIIIIIIIIIIIING

wow dude, you suck at poker.






Im obv kidding, great read.

i dont know carrot but if hes a winner i strongly doubt he does this kind of play every times
im just saying i think its more profitable to raise a cont bet done by someone who raise pre flop a tons and c bet 100% of the time (laggy bluffer) than some 11/5/3 nit

i wasnt talking about a retard who play bottom pair for stacks every times

after reading ur articles i feel kinda miserable lol, got so much to learn
thanks

On April 13 2007 06:41 Roman wrote: myth, firstly that example is horrible. Trying to bluff for 120 more in a reraised pot that had over 600 in it is plain maniacal. One of the main reasons that bluffing bluffers is avoided by most is because it is veryyyy scary. If the guy has anything half decent ur getting stacked usually, and if he doesnt, ur winning a medium sized pot. However, u cant deny how many opportunities exist to pick up free money where the guy would have to be a psychic to put you on a bluff. If you are finding it impossible to bluff a LAG, it is because either u dont know him well enough, or your metagame is off. The one dangerous thing you advocated is the "rarely bluff, slowplay big hand" method of beating LAGs. The truth is, that strategy will only work against the worst and 'monkiest' LAGs. There are a lot of pitfalls associated with that style including becoming too predictabe, not being able to bluff almost ever without floating (which is the worst against LAGs cause they just keep firing), and often losing action versus top pair and twopair hands because you failed to make the pot bigger on earlier streets. just some food for thought, i don't know how much deeper i can delve on this subject here without revealing intimate parts of my game...

does this mean that you do bluff me

-also i think one thing to be weary about when you bluff bluffers is to not get pulled out of your game and start playing their way. i think thats half of what lag players are looking for in general.

but yeah, well put roman.

very good point too pooruser, I agree 100%. I love this game

really really interesting..thx guys
reading this I feel like I'm one of these monkeys and I will often try to rebluff ,get called and look stupid (at least I can valuetown them later because of that)
is AF 4 ok?

Awesome