| Posted by: MAX101 at May 19, 2007, 12:49 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
I play a passive- aggressive game.Tournys in the beginning I play passive till the blinds go up unless I hit a monster or I notice a player makes a mistake. Ring games the same in the beginning I look for tells, betting habits,look to see what they play [cards] then I play aggressive. So being passive is not a bad thing at anytime as long as you know when and why. Yes to win you have to be aggressive this is what took me the longest to learn. The best feelin in poker is when you can get the table to fold just because you raise.[ with 7 2] so keep playing these guys can get a little deep sometimes but I learned alot on this site
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: young hova at May 18, 2007, 11:35 pm | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
thanks joe and thanks juice, I do appreciate that
jeff, I knew the middle position player wouldnt reraise without a good handlike that, but at the same time, he wasnt even calling the blind, he was playing fairly tight so I knew he had to either have an ace or couldve maybe had a pocket pair under 9 to call double the bb (even though its only 60). the texture of the flop I knew he couldnt have flopped 2 pair because he was that tight that he wouldnt make that loose of a call, but he couldve hit a lower set, judging by the few hands I seen him play I couldnt put him on a set of queens (of course thats why its best to stay away from confrontations like this early in a tourney)
I just had a hunch he wouldnt call with a set with a bet and a check raise, your right it ain't good to make these generalizations, but in the specific position I was put in I was forced to put to use what little I knew about him and how I though a player would play based on how he had been playing.
as far... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: juiceeQ at May 17, 2007, 5:15 pm | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Young hova, I went ahead and edited your first post just to break it up into paragraphs. I hope you don't mind. It's obvious you spent a lot of time on it, and I wanted to make sure everyone who iews this thread will take the time to read it.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: jeffred1111 at May 17, 2007, 4:30 pm | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Quote:
The player that called his all in hand, I knew that I had his hand beat on the flop, because if he was stronger he wouldve raised the minimum raise preflop and if he had him on the flop for sure I figured he would've raised either to protect his hands from draws or simply because he would believe his hand is better.
Be ery, ery, ery careful with this, as ilain could have the lower pockets, or even pocket queens for a set. Some people think that to reraise, you have to at least have QQ, KK or AA and will just call a small raise with almost any two cards.
Also, a lot of peopl are passive on the flop and will just call, even with the better hand, so be careful about generalization. If everybody played like Slansky, sure it would've been a raise or fold situation , but peope like to gamble or disguise their hand.
On another note, his call all-in was an indicator that he was either drawing to the flush (or that he had hit trips), wich put you in a spot whe... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: joeeagles at May 17, 2007, 1:44 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by young hova
If you can't determine what that person has and there are draws out there and you don't think you can call a big bet if one of the draws hits you miswell bet so he's not getting odds to call his draw if you think your hand was good (even though most maniacs don't understand this concept]
I agree with that.
Your hand is a perfect example of when to apply this, because besides the draw out there you really need to know if your hand is best and reraising is the only way to find out. Plus a smooth call to an aggressive player smells weakness, and your hand wasn't exactly that strong so you put yourself in position to escape it cheaply w/o calling him all the way down which is more expensive. Well played sir.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: young hova at May 17, 2007, 1:31 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Egon Towst
Sorry, Hova.
Primarily, we mean break it up into paragraphs.
Any large body of text is astly easier for the reader to follow if each new point or idea is presented as a new paragraph. It both helps him to separate one idea from the next and assists in the actual process of reading. In a large and monotonous block, you blink and you have lost your place.
Yeah you are right, I'll keep that in mind next time I post because I definitely agree with that
Yeah Joe, thats why I said its about 50/50 (well I play it more like 75/25 with the higher being my more aggressive play), because you definitely have the maniac thats just so outrageous that he'll just donk his chips off to you passively
My main point is before you consider playing passive you should first evaluate how much you like your hand, than based on what you know about the aggressive player you gotta put them on a hand, and if you can do that and b... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: joeeagles at May 16, 2007, 6:26 pm | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
I read your paragraph Hova and I agree with most of it. The one thing to add though is that there are many levels of aggressiveness and you can't treat them the same way. Some players are so aggressive that its ok to be passive when your hand is strong because they will keep doing the betting for you and if you raise they're probably done putting money in the pot and you lost alue.
In general though, you should never show weakness to an aggressive player unless you're setting him up with a strong hand. On this I totally agree with you. The passive strategy is not good because you'll never know where you stand and he constantly will force you into ery tough decisions, possibly for all your chips. The hand ex. that you made with AJ is a good one.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Egon Towst at May 16, 2007, 5:43 pm | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Sorry, Hova.
Primarily, we mean break it up into paragraphs.
Any large body of text is astly easier for the reader to follow if each new point or idea is presented as a new paragraph. It both helps him to separate one idea from the next and assists in the actual process of reading. In a large and monotonous block, you blink and you have lost your place.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: young hova at May 15, 2007, 11:14 pm | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
what do you mean by this format is unreadable? New to the forum, so a bit confused
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Egon Towst at May 15, 2007, 6:39 pm | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by aliengenius
^This format is unreadable
I concur.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: aliengenius at May 15, 2007, 4:01 pm | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by young hova
If your worried about losing too many chips being aggressive than you'll easily get pushed around.
Someone said its usually a bad idea countering aggression with aggression, ennnnh, I think this is 50/50 and I actually prefer countering with aggression. It definitely makes sense just to call when you have an aggressive maniac on your hands or you have the absolute nuts, but every aggressive player isn't a maniac. Most people are taught just to call the bully but sometimes this will get you in hot water, especially when your out of position. What will happen is that you will have an aggressive player on your hands that will sometimes take your checks for weakness and will fire 3 shells at you to test your courage. Say for example you have ace jack and and aggressive player raises it up, the flop comes and you hit your ace and he fires a probing bet 3/4ths the pot and you call. 4th street comes and to you it seems a blank and he bets the pot... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: young hova at May 15, 2007, 1:05 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
If your worried about losing too many chips being aggressive than you'll easily get pushed around.
Someone said its usually a bad idea countering aggression with aggression, ennnnh, I think this is 50/50 and I actually prefer countering with aggression. It definitely makes sense just to call when you have an aggressive maniac on your hands or you have the absolute nuts, but every aggressive player isn't a maniac. Most people are taught just to call the bully but sometimes this will get you in hot water, especially when your out of position. What will happen is that you will have an aggressive player on your hands that will sometimes take your checks for weakness and will fire 3 shells at you to test your courage.
Say for example you have ace jack and and aggressive player raises it up, the flop comes and you hit your ace and he fires a probing bet 3/4ths the pot and you call. 4th street comes and to you it seems a blank and he bets the pot, now your thinking your hand is good but you... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: joosebuck at May 13, 2007, 9:03 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
i disagree. this is the most typical thing. if im LAGing ill go over the top of c/r's a lot. the only c/r that works is a shove.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: 23rd Paradox at May 13, 2007, 8:11 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Just be prepared to try and get muscled out of pots. Passive is like playing limit, but use Check Raise to your advantage as a passive player. Its probably the strongest move you can make as a passive presence.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: aliengenius at May 11, 2007, 6:16 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by PoochMasterFlex
what about countering aggression with even more aggression?
Usually this is a bad idea. Maniacs will usually be better at being maniacs than you will...
Standard procedure:
1. Play big hands fast.
2. Play total nothing hands fast a bit more than you normally would. This will make 1. (above) more effective.
If you want him to stop picking on you specifically, try coming over the top with total garbage one time (94o), and SHOW the hand, whether he folds or reraises and you have to fold; doesn't matter, the point is to warn him that you are capable of playing back, making you a less appealing target.
3. Call down with marginal hands a bit more than you normally would; getting aggro s. a maniac with something like K9s on a Q92 rainbow flop might seem like a good idea at the time, but he will show you a better hand too often to make it profitable IF you play a big pot; call down if the turn and river are r... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Stefanicov at May 11, 2007, 2:57 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
That is where the ery top players are coz they are all agressive and if u gain tht skill u will become rich from this game
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: aliengenius at May 11, 2007, 2:17 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Schatzdog
I think you need to find more of a balance here. Being aggressive against the right opponent in the right situation is, generally, a winning strategy. That said, being passive against the right opponent in the right situation can also be profitable. Each style has a counter style. Mix up your game to include the profitable bits of each.
No one is disagreeing with this. I am simply trying to distill aggressive s. passive down to the most basic argument for aggression, WITHOUT getting into specific situations.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Schatzdog at May 10, 2007, 10:25 pm | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
I think you need to find more of a balance here. Being aggressive against the right opponent in the right situation is, generally, a winning strategy. That said, being passive against the right opponent in the right situation can also be profitable. Each style has a counter style. Mix up your game to include the profitable bits of each.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: aliengenius at May 10, 2007, 7:10 pm | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by PoochMasterFlex
yea but being aggressive can also lose you more chips than being passive.. but i dont know of any passive professional players
This is an extremely simplistic iew. Being passive will cost you chips in the long run, in more ways than one. For example, if you check and give a free card to someone who otherwise would have folded. Or you simply failed to make the most money that you could on a hand when you were way ahead-- that's money you "lost" by not maximizing your +EV situations (see this guy w aa).
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: PoochMasterFlex at May 10, 2007, 6:53 pm | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
yea but being aggressive can also lose you more chips than being passive.. but i dont know of any passive professional players
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: aliengenius at May 10, 2007, 6:15 pm | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
I think the question here is "Why is being aggressive better than being passive?".
The simple answer is, being aggressive gives you two ways to win: your opponent can fold, OR you can end up with the best hand. Being passive, you are dependent on the cards; you need to show down the best hand to win.
Ideally we don't want to be dependent on the cards to win at poker (since luck will theoretically break even over the long run for everyone).
Aggression is the key to understanding phrases like "Good players don't need good cards to win".
Certainly we have to know when aggression is unwarranted (e.g., s a calling station when we don't have a hand), and certainly in some lower limit games you are going to be more card dependent because of this (you will have to show down the best hand). And many of these games can be beaten simply by playing your cards patiently (and perhaps some of these games can NOT be beat with a LAG style?).
But if you... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Egon Towst at May 10, 2007, 10:09 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
There seems to be a problem with the terminology here.
What the OP is describing is Loose play, not Passive. In fact, the style he is describing sounds Loose/Aggressive, since he describes how he will raise preflop.
Briefly:
Loose = plays a lot of hands
Tight = plays only good hands
Passive = checks and calls, rarely raises
Aggressive = often bets and raises, seldom checks
So there are four broad styles:
Loose/Passive
Loose/Aggressive
Tight/Passive
Tight/Aggressive
(though each may be further broken down).
Apologies if all of that sent the more experienced members to sleep.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: SudoBoyar33921 at May 10, 2007, 9:37 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Maybe it's just the people I play with, but I have always enjoyed this style of play at my home games and especially in the bodog free rolls. I like to test my table a little bit online to see if I can play this way, if a lot of hands get limped all the way around I usually end up being able to hit/bluff my way into profit as long as I keep a tab on how people bet and don't call a raise at all unless I have something decent. I mix it up a bit of course, avoiding showdowns of the really lucky hits and the bluffs, playing my AA the same way I play my 56 off... but overall I enjoy it if it's possible. There's definitely situations where it isn't, my home game seems to be that way now, I missed out on a few months of play and they all switched up their styles, it's not so friendly pre-flop anymore...
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: TexasHoney at May 10, 2007, 9:37 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Stefanico
Ok standard passive play is bad always u got to be agressive always
Passive players get eaten up by the agressive ones as soon as they realise how passive they are
I agree ery true
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Stefanicov at May 10, 2007, 9:34 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
[quote=shinedown.45;541745], the flop comes up 75K, are you going to bet this?
dont you know the answer to that shine hehe of course u bet it awwwrin ob it is monster of course you are ahead
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: shinedown.45 at May 10, 2007, 9:05 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
It will lose you money in the long run, say you bet your 35os, the flop comes up 75K, are you going to bet this? and if you are, by how much?
In the long run this type of play will lose you money because you"ll keep on playing rags, those rags will hit with overs on the board and you'll lose.
Players who play the style you mention become really predictable and tend to overvalue PPs.
If this style of play works for you, go with it, but if you find yourself rebuying into a table because your, lets say pocket 8s didn't hold up to an all-in then I think you have to re-evaluate your play.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Stefanicov at May 10, 2007, 8:49 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
Ok standard passive play is bad always u got to be agressive always
Passive players get eaten up by the agressive ones as soon as they realise how passive they are
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: PoochMasterFlex at May 10, 2007, 8:32 am | | Topic: Being passive Forum: Card Chat |
How bad is being a passive poker player at a cash game. I'm talking about limping in every hand when i have cards like 3 5 off suit raise double the blind with a high card and medium card, and then raise 4x the blind wit someting good. and changing the betting too. like raise with 3 5 offsuit.
| | Static Link |
|