hey,

ive been playing poker for pretty a long time now. about 3 months ago i finally managed to get HEM. in my HUD settings i can apply (?) aggression factor and agression %?

ive always been asking me whats the concrete difference of those both?

Thank you very much in advance!

ps: im not english native, so pardon any mistake i made.

Not sure if this is really what you're asking, but I think from a formula perspective AF is bets and raises divided by calls and AFq is bets and raises divided by bets, raises, calls, and folds.

I assume they generally tell you the same thing, but I guess I'm a little curious too behind the theory of each of them and which one tells you more and if they mean slightly different things.

Like if we have 2 different players and they each raise 5 out of 10 hands, but one of the players folds 4 of the other 5 with 1 call and the other player calls 4 of the other 5 with 1 fold:

Player A: raise 5 fold 4 call 1: AF = 5/1 = 5...AFq = 5/(5+4+1) = 50%

Player B: raise 5 call 4 fold 1: AF = 5/4 = 1.25...AFq = 5/(5+4+1) = 50%

Assuming my calculations are right, the first player would show an AF of 5 and the second player would show an AF of 1.25...so the first player would look aggressive. But using AFq, they would both be 50%.

It seems that AFq is just showing us how frequently the villain is making an aggressive move: betting / raising...what percentage of the time they do it when they have a chance to.

AF, though, seems to show more about a player's likelihood of just calling.

I, too, would love to know anything further about these stats if anyone is more experienced with them. In particular, are there particular times where AF is a better indicator than AFq of anything? And is one preferable to the other?

tank you spg...would love to read more about that too...if anyone is able to explain here. an i guess there are some people out there who are...

Aggression Factor: this is defined by (bets + raises) / (calls). That is, the total number of times the player bet when first to act or raised a bet, divided by the number of times the player called a bet.

What this basically is showing is how aggressive a player is "when he decides to continue in a hand". For example, Player 1 with an AF of 1 calls a bet just as often as they bet or raise themselves. Player 2 with an AF or 3 bets or raises 3 times as often as they just call a bet. Player 1 is playing much more passively than Player 2.

Aggression Frequency: this is defined by (bets + raises) / (bets + raises + calls + folds). That is, the total number of times the player bet or raised a bet, divided by the total number of all his potential actions.

This statistic is showing how often a player will take an aggressive action "when faced with any decision". For example, Player 1 with an AFq of 10% only bets or raises 1 time in 10, the other 9 times he either calls or folds. Player 2 with an Afq of 60 bets or raises 6 times in 10, and only folds or calls 4 times in 10.

To me, the Aggression Frequency is easier to understand, and it is what I use now instead of Aggression Factor. I think it also is more close to being correct over a smaller sample size than Aggresion Factor, so it is more useful to me at the lower limits since you face so many different opponents.

Both of these stats only measure actions Post-Flop, so Pre-Flop actions aren't included. You would use VPIP and PFR to measure Pre-Flop aggressiveness.

Well said; thanks for your explanation. I think I understand it a bit better now.