The Meaning of Aggression

When I’m watching the best no-limit hold’em players go about their business, I sometimes think to myself, “These guys are crazy!” The level of aggression that they’re willing to put into their games is often staggering. The best players will raise, reraise, and re-reraise with nothing if the situation warrants such action. I also do all of this, but I seem to do it a lot less often than some of the professionals whose games I respect.

Imagine my surprise, then, when after I posted a training video for stoxpoker.com in which I played my usual style, a member commented that he loved my “ultra-aggressive approach.” I barely remembered playing any hands! Don’t get me wrong, I try to pick up more than my fair share of pots. But, ultra-aggressive? I had to go back and watch the video again to see what he might’ve been talking about. In doing so, I realized that there must be some vast disconnect within the poker community about what constitutes an aggressive strategy. What was aggressive to me was ultra-aggressive to the typical player, but merely routine for a top professional. I thought I’d take this column to get into what’s passive, what’s aggressive, and what’s ultra-aggressive in my mind for a few specific tournament scenarios. Maybe once I get a bunch of readers on board with my view, we all can ask the Phil Iveys of the world how they manage to play ultra-aggressive poker so frequently.

Scenario No. 1: You have 10-5 offsuit in the big blind. The cutoff and small blind limp in, and you check your option. There is 150 in the pot, and everyone has about 1,500 in his stack. The flop comes K-8-4 with two spades, and it is checked around. The turn pairs the 4, and the small blind checks. What do you do?

The passive play is to simply check and fold. You have no pair and no draw, and two opponents, so it’s perfectly reasonable not to invest any more money in the pot.

The aggressive play is to bet, with the intention of folding to a raise. It’s unlikely that the cutoff checked a pair on the flop, or that the small blind checked one pair on the turn with the flush draw on the board, and it’s statistically unlikely that the small blind has a set of fours. There is an excellent chance that no one has anything, and you can pick up the pot with a bet. If anyone raises, you’ll fold, as you’ll probably be drawing dead if you reraise all in and get called.

The ultra-aggressive play is to bet, planning to move in if anyone raises. You’re the big blind, and you’re the most likely player in the hand to have a 4. If someone raises, you’ll assume that he’s testing the waters with a medium pair or even semibluffing with a draw, and then you’ll move in, knowing that you can reliably represent a set. Your opponent will be forced to fold with most of his likely holdings. Who cares if people don’t usually raise the turn with a quarter of their chips and then muck? You have a perfect setup to look for hidden fold equity! (Note: In case it’s not clear, the preceding is the hypothetical reasoning of the ultra-aggressive player, and not my own advice.)

In the actual hand, I took the “aggressive” course of action and bet out, planning to fold to a raise. Luckily, both of my opponents folded.

Scenario No. 2: An opponent opens from under the gun plus two for 3.5 big blinds. He started the hand with 27 big blinds in his stack, and you have him covered. You have pocket eights in the hijack position (two seats to his left). What’s your play?

The passive strategy is to call and see what develops on the flop. You don’t want to make a reraise that will put you in an awkward position, and you don’t want to risk 27 big blinds to win 5 (the 3.5 from his raise, plus the 1.5 from the small and big blinds), so you call and try to see a flop in position with a decent hand.

The aggressive strategy is to raise to 8.5 big blinds or so, planning to fold if your opponent moves in. A small reraise to 8.5 big blinds will look very strong on your part, and should often win the pot immediately. At the same time, because you’re representing such a strong hand, you’ll be able to put your opponent on a monster if he reraises you all in, and you’ll comfortably fold in that situation, even though you’re getting slightly more than 2-1 on your money.

The ultra-aggressive strategy is to reraise all in. You know that this play is almost certainly better than folding. Maybe you don’t trust yourself to make the right decision later in the hand if you take either of the other approaches. Maybe you just want the image of someone who will constantly set his opponents all in. Either way, the ultra-aggressive approach is for you.

I actually took the passive approach in this hand. I like to play a flop game rather than a preflop game when I have any kind of opportunity to do so. The flop came A-K-5, and I folded. We’ll never know if the passive approach cost me or saved me money.

Scenario No. 3: Everyone folds to you on the button. You have K-4 offsuit and 13 big blinds. The big blind has a total of 7.5 big blinds, and the small blind has you covered. There are nine players left in the tournament, and six will get paid. What’s your play?

The passive approach is to simply fold. You have a lousy hand, and you don’t think your opponents will fold often enough to show a profit by raising.

The aggressive approach is to move all in. You’re pretty sure the big blind is trying to fold his way to glory, so you want to take a shot at the pot. A standard raise will all but commit you anyway, and you don’t want to give the small blind any ideas about restealing. So, you shove in 13 big blinds to win 1.5 big blinds, thinking there’s a good chance that your play has positive expected value with two random cards.

As for the third option — with this stack size, in this position, against these opponents’ stack sizes — it doesn’t exist; no ultra-aggressive strategy is available. The most aggressive action you can take is already covered by the aggressive approach.

In this spot, I used the aggressive strategy and both opponents folded.
There is a time and a place for all three approaches. Which path you should choose depends on the stack sizes, the tournament situation, and, of course, your read. But first, make sure that you know just how aggressive, or ultra-aggressive, your strategy really is. I hope that you now have a better idea of when you’re applying just a little pressure and when you’re truly putting the pedal to the metal.

Matt Matros is the author of The Making of a Poker Player, which is available online at www.CardPlayer.com. He is also a featured coach for stoxpoker.com.