Too Much of a Good Thing

Everyone knows that selective and aggressive play is one of the keys to winning poker. Credible experts always recommend this style of play, and in truth, it's nearly impossible to argue against it. After all, if you think selective play isn't such a good idea, just play every hand and see how long your money lasts. Passive play makes free or inexpensive cards available to opponents who otherwise might not have continued to draw if they had to call a bet or a raise. Aggressive play drives up the cost of getting lucky, and gets more money in the pot when you are the favorite. Moreover, there's only one way for passive players to win; they have to show down the best hand.

Aggressive players can still win in a showdown, and in ways that aren't available to passive players. Aggressiveness often forces opponents to release slightly better hands. Betting or raising can also make drawing hands too costly to play. And a passive player's opponent might be able to draw at no cost, or at least inexpensively, and if he gets lucky, he'll make the winning hand.

There's no mystery here, and nothing new thus far. But this is a think piece, which I hope will stimulate some discussion about this topic: If selectivity and aggressiveness are good, can there be too much of a good thing?

Can one be too selective and too aggressive? We're not talking about maniacal aggressiveness here, but aggressiveness in the best sense of the word. Instead of typical selectively aggressive play, what would happen if you banished calling from your repertoire entirely – or almost entirely? Suppose that you drew a line in the sand, and either released your hand or raised. And if you called at all, you'd better have a very good reason for doing so. In this brave new world, no reflex-calling is permitted!

Is this good strategy, or one doomed to failure? You'd avoid many of those circumstances when an opponent's hand dominates yours and you're left with only a few outs. I know what you're thinking: "Even when I raise with a very good hand like A-Q, every so often my hand will be dominated by A-K." OK, OK. I understand. Been there, done that, and I realize that even when you raise before the flop with a pair of kings, sometimes your opponent will be waiting for you with a pair of aces, and you'll be a huge underdog – miracle straights and flushes notwithstanding – looking for one or two cards in the deck that will enable you to capture the pot.

But that sort of thing doesn't happen very often, while passive play – such as calling with troublesome hands like Q-J, J-10, or K-10 and finding your hand dominated – occurs all the time. Instead of calling, suppose that you folded those trouble hands before the flop; would you be better off? Think about it. Have you won more than you've lost during your lifetime by calling from early, middle, or even late position with hands of this ilk? Would you, as you replay the tapes in your head of the hundreds or thousands of times you've called with these hands, have been better off if you had either raised or folded?

The answer is not always clear, particularly where borderline hands are concerned. In fact, it may differ for different players in different games, and may even vary according to the opponents who have already entered the pot – never mind such factors as your position, table image, and a compendium of others too numerous to mention here.

Because we're dealing with borderline hands – not only those cited as examples, but many others, too – decisions tend to cluster around the "it depends" school of poker strategy. Where do you line up on this issue? Can one be too selective and too aggressive? Should one's initial inclination be to either raise or fold, with calling a last option? Or, is your tendency to call – sort of like you're on autopilot – with raising or folding as an option only in unusual circumstances?

What kind of advice would you offer on this subject? Suppose that a new player asked your opinion. What would you recommend and why would you suggest one particular course of action? Do you believe a "pump it or dump it" approach to selective and aggressive play works best only in tournaments, or do you believe it works equally well – or is even a better strategy – in cash games?

Remember, this is a think piece. I've set the issue on your table. Now it's your turn to do some analysis and a little soul-searching. While so much has been written about selective and aggressive play being a key to winning at poker, precious little has been said about precisely how selective and aggressive one should be, and how to decide when a hand ought to be played aggressively, or when it should be released.

My objective is to stimulate discussion and garner all of the opinions, reasons, facts, and rationale that you the reader can bring to bear on this topic. Can one be too selective and too aggressive? If so, where would you draw the line? You can post your responses to the Internet newsgroup Rec.Gambling.Poker, or you can contact me directly. I'll summarize the responses in a future column.

Visit my website at www.loukrieger.com. My newest book, Poker for Dummies, is available at major bookstores everywhere.