16.7%.

I think Venice's point about TAG and LAG descriptions is spot on. Independent of whether being aggressive is good or bad, it's just not accurate to describe someone that calls often as "aggressive".

It sometimes appears that many in the LLSNL forum community assume that aggressive means good and passive means bad -- and vice versa. Many posters seem to think "TAG" means something like "fairly tight and pretty good", while LAG means "fairly loose and pretty good".

There are also plenty of posts suggesting that a play is good or bad based only on how aggressive or passive it is. That's just bad reasoning. If a play is good, it's good because of what it accomplishes, not how it's described.

But regardless of whether V (or H for that matter) is good or bad, it's misleading to claim someone is "aggressive" when they're just less passive than the typical LLSNL player.

I've taken to characterizing V's by the mistakes I think they make -- call too much, bet too much, fold too much and when they make them (pre/post/whatever). If I call a V "TAG", I'm relying on all viewers to have the same image of TAG that I do. That's not likely to work reliably.

I think you mean flat instead of limp (you either mean never 'call' or just never limp period, since you technically you can't limp in a raised pot). Semantics aside, you will miss out on good spots, and you will rarely hold the goods in a multiway pot which is usually a lucrative proposition.

I agree, and that's not what I'm advocating. If you're playing against observant enough opponents, part of your flatting range should include JJ+ (maybe 1/7 times just for balance). But if you're playing against unobservant opponents, you might always flat certain hands and always raise some hands. But I'm not suggesting your flat vs raise ranges be as drastic as you're seeming to think.

It's likely that you're right, but that's just how I felt when reading. As a player who adapts to tables, fighting aggression with aggression both pre and post isn't always a winning strategy. I think you should, with relative frequency, be aggressive and take down pots without the best hand or dragging it out to SD, but I just felt he was advocating at a level that was suboptimal. Again it could just be me, but perhaps others felt similarly?

I agree with this statement. And no, we obviously want to have an edge on the field. We should definitely be aggro as a default, but implying that calling every so often with a well thought out plan that raising would thwart means you are passive, and therefore bad, is symptomatic of a poorly thought out strategy. I'd bet you are a better player than I am, and deep down this isn't your belief quite to the degree that you portrayed in your rant. I think really what happened is you were tired of people mislabeling mediocre/neutral players as aggro, and projected your frustration in a way that appeared as an overcorrection. It happens. I could be wrong, but whatevs.

It looks like you see what I'm saying. Obviously he isn't flatting 17.6% of all hands.

I agree with Steve and Venice about seldom limping (only when conditions are really right for it) preflop. Otherwise, no matter how you slice it, you are playing bingo, just like the other regs. And if you are coolering them, well congrats, but it ain't your superior "postflop edge" that is destroying them, you are just on a heater (and may have been since you took up poker, it's certainly possible). This does not mean you have to go balls to the wall postflop. Sometimes the most aggressive thing you can do postflop is flat.

I can't count the number of times I raise preflop, get donked into OTF (not a small donk begging for a raise, but a nice normal bet), flat and get donked into OTT, flat and get checked to OTR, when a nice pot sized bet by me usually takes it down. It's a game of chicken, and the few who can play it to the edge of the cliff in LLSNL are very far between.

It is really very simple, raising preflop with ATC dramatically increases the moves you can credibly make (assuming reasonably sized stacks), while limping (with ANY hand) dramatically decreases the moves you can credibly make (so you mostly need the goods).

There is a range of aggression, not a binary choice between passive and aggressive. On one end is a maniac who almost always takes an aggressive action (even a maniac sometimes checks) and at the other end is an uber-passive who needs the nuts (or close to it) to bet and raise. A player who we can describe as a TAG or a LAG plays with a level of aggression somewhere in-between. I think part of the problem is that we don't have a good nomenclature to describe players who are neither particularly aggressive nor particularly passive.

I personally use a semi-aggressive strategy. Preflop, that means that a lot of hands in my range are sometimes-raise and sometimes-call in a limped pot.

There are some tables where I think it is correct to play relatively passive. At a loose, limp-y table where players limp-call a lot and go too far with hands post-flop if they catch any piece of the board, I think it is correct to limp along and play a bit fit-or-foldish. It's also correct to play passive against a maniac and turn most of your non-folding range into bluff catchers.

You're implying that all passive players are of equivalent skill level which simply is not the case.

I think you mean increases the stacks you can credibly spew. If you are playing with regs a lot, then you should do some advertising. Definitely open up your range wide as hell in certain spots like LP, do some light 3 betting IP. But the notion you should be playing ATC is ludicrous, esp. at 1/2 NL. FPS

This encapsulates most of my general point.

Tilty, just to be clear I'm not saying that you should never call. I'm not saying you should never limp. An aggression factor of 3 means you're going to call 25% of the time, not that you're never calling. An aggression factor of 2 would be considered aggressive in live play and means you're limping/calling 1/3 of the time. There are plenty of situations where calling is the best play.

I would say that today many more posters are likely to call and limp far more hands than what was happening before Black Friday. I attribute that to the lack of knowledge that is developed by having a HUD online and being able to see with your own eyes that calling a raise with K8s is a -EV play. The default decision is to call with anything that isn't a monster or obvious bad hand. That I think is costing a lot of players small chunks of cash which are hard to spot, but in the long run deadly their their winrate.

I meant if you never limp. I wasn't talking about situations when you call after a raise. Sorry I really wrote that part you quoted in a weird way.

Sorry if I misconstrued your words Venice. Your last post seems very reasonable. And Steve, I knew what you meant, but yea it was just worded sorta funkily.

All in all, the point stands. Limping is bad. Open limping is downright unacceptable, and calling raises should be strategic and kept to a minimum. Oh, and stop calling passive/neutral players aggressive.

Below is TLDR:

Reading through some older posts/stickies.
I agree with your first premise that there is a meter of aggression that at times can be dialed up or down depending on situations.

As far as the bolded, this is a table ripe for this strategy. Venice's point wasn't to be a maniac and just bet bet bet or raise no matter what but that adding a little aggression can really make your opponents uneasy and force them to make mistakes when we take control, when the pots are bigger that's better for us. If people aren't folding when they have any piece, sure i won't be able to necessarily bluff them off a winning hand but that isn't the goal.

Let's take this hand I saw the other day, game is 1/2 and stacks are ~$250 (i am not hero in this hand, I folded as UTG+1):

UTG limps, Mp2 limps, HJ limps H limps the button with 98 the SB calls and the BB checks.

Flop($12) K94
SB,BB,UTG,MP2 all check and HJ bets $10, H calls(I know not everyone would)
SB and BB fold, UTG and MP2 call.

Turn ($52) K949
UTG now bets $30, MP2 folds, HJ calls. H?
H calls, can't fold, raising has some merit but UTG is now representing the hand that you have or maybe he decided now he wants to bet his KQ?

River ($142) K949J
UTG bets $75, HJ calls, H?
At this point we basically have a bluff catcher in a limped pot that ont the flop had an SPR of 25!?! and is now 150bb and put us in a tough spot. H thought for a few seconds and sigh called.

UTG had A9, HJ wins with QT, H flashes 98 and mucks.

H lost 2+10+30 +75 = $112, I know not everyone would have played the hand the same as this H did but it seems like no street was an easy decision.

Let's pretend H raised the button to $15 instead and UTG, MP2, HJ all call and the blinds fold.
Flop($63) K94 and everyone now instead checks to hero who bets $35

This is where things potentially change and you need to know your opponents, will UTG now call $35 with middle pair against a preflop aggressor on a K high board with 2 people to act behind him? Will HJ call with a gutshot and BD flush Draw? will that depend on what UTG does?

Let's say that UTG calls since this is a limpy call pre and call any piece post flop guy,HJ folds and now it's heads up:
Turn ($135) K949

If UTG now decides to bet we have a decision, raising seems bad and this is where you need to again know your opponents, would UTG turn a K or some other 1 pair hand into a bluff here? If he plays a 9 up front it is prob weighted more towards T9+ and we could even potentially fold to his donk, especially if he is passive.

If UTG checks and H bets $65 and now UTG jams, again, depending on his range we can probably just fold, people don't C/R bluff much at 1/2 and most of his 9x range is better than 98. We could also check the turn and let him stab river or bet when checked to.

Against sticky opponents we still likely lose the hand however notice that in the limp scenario we lose $112, in the scenario we raise pre and take initiative we control the hand, lose less in this hand and will even sometimes win it when UTG decides he doesn't want to continue on the flop with middle pair for $35. This is somewhat offset when we raise to $15 and completely miss and fold, we lost $13 extra dollars but we can make up for that in other pots we steal that we couldn't steal in limped pots and the stolen pots are bigger.

Let's say we had QT(not diamonds) suited instead, just like HJ and we limped behind, there's a much bigger chance in the limped pot that we don't get to the river, where if we had raised and cbet the flop the other QT folds to our cbet, we potentially check behind on the turn, then call/raise the UTG lead on the river and take down the pot with a straight.

Sure we are going to miss tons of flops, have to just give up because it went multiway and we bricked it huge, but we are also going to give ourself a ton of free cards, knock out better hands by constantly putting people in tough spots OOP against us and if in this hand UTG had KT instead? we potentially got 3 streets of value when we bink the 9, but people are so damn passive that after he calls our Cbet with KT, assuming we don't bink the 9 or 8 that he is just going to check down the turn/river, not losing more when behind but picking up many more BBs when we bink.

After we win one of these type of hands after binking a turn, next time we raise the same spot and get the same flop with AK/KK they may call down lighter.

Your post flop game needs to be on point, but simple things like raising a little wider on the button over limpers can actually make some hands easier.