Aggression: Aggressive play is the key to success

Author: Byron jacobs

All good poker players play actively because they know aggressive play is the key to success. Some play only slightly aggressive, others very aggressive, and still others super aggressive. And you certainly will not hear this about the world champion: "How good he is - he really creates problems for his opponents by playing carefully at the right time."

In poker, as in life, you must create profitable situations yourself. This can often be achieved by taking the initiative in your own hands: betting and raising, instead of simple check-calls. Of course, in theory, most players understand this, but in practice, in suitable situations, only the best ones use aggression, while the weaker ones continue to play passively.
Recently I have been coaching several players who are relatively successful online at $5-$10 and $10-$20. They are serious and diligent students with good starting hands and good post-flop play. But the biggest weakness that I noticed in everyone (by the way, which is the reason for their failures at $15-$30 and above) is the lack of aggression at key moments. Here's a typical example:

Our hero is in middle position, limited hold'em $10-$20; play with eight. On the button sits MrFish - a terrible player who plays too many hands, moreover, he is passive and often overpays. In the big blind - MrTricky, also not a pro, but he has an idea of the game and loves traps and non-standard, although justified moves.
Our hero AK and he opens the game with a raise. MrFish calls (as he always does), and MrTricky delivers $10 to his blind to see the flop. Three players in the game, in the pot $60. The flop comes 10 7 3... MrTricky bets right away. Our hero is pondering the situation: he has two top cards, which most likely give him six straight outs (for three aces and three kings), in addition, he keeps in mind the possibility of a backdoor flush (if the turn and the river have more picushka). In the bank, $70, and you need to deliver $10, which means the ratio of the rate to the bank is 7-to-1. He decides that this is a pretty undeniable call and does just that. MrFish accepts too.

Three players in the game, in the pot $90. 4 appears on the turn (table - 10 7 3 4) and MrTricky checks. Our hero has a great opportunity for the nut flush, besides, he has two high cards, knowing that he needs to be aggressive, he now bets himself. MrFish and then MrTricky accept his bet. River brings 5 (table 10 7 3 4 5). MrTricky checks again, our hero and MrFish do the same. After MrTricky shows 9 8 (he didn't catch his street), our hero's hopes for winning are increasing. Sorry MrFish shows A 5 and takes the pot with a pair of fives. Of course, MrFish played horribly and was unjustly rewarded.

Having come to his senses, our hero analyzes the situation - yes, he was ahead on the flop and even more so on the turn. But the problem is that he can only blame himself. His main mistake happened on the flop: after MrTricky bet first, our hero felt that it was mathematically justified to accept, which he did - he did not look deeply. MrFish also took with his A 5 and rushed to victory. Never mind that his calls are disgusting from the point of view of competent play (believe me, you will have to watch similar pictures more than once online). Of course, if MrTricky had 10 or 7, MrFish's hand on the flop would have been almost hopeless, since neither 5 nor ace suited him. However, perhaps unexpectedly for some, it was in this situation that MrFish after the flop had as much as 15% to win (giving him 8-to-1), so his bet can be considered relatively normal (although, nevertheless, that he raised with A5s pre-flop is blameworthy). Either way, the discussion of how MrFish played just bad or very bad doesn't matter. He plays weak
Bo and gives you his money - this is his role. Your task is to take his money, it was her that our hero failed completely and unconditionally. How would you play in such a situation?

All he had to do was raise the flop. In this case, Mr Fish's bet-to-pot ratio is reduced to 4-to-1, and now, even for him to continue, he needs to have a pair, a flush draw or an open straight draw (for example, two diamonds or the same 98). Most likely, he would have dropped his A5s at this point. The reason why our hero didn't raise on the flop is obvious, he was embarrassed by MrTricky's bet and was afraid he was up against a pair; by simply accepting, he wished to see the thorn cheaply. But a strong player, almost without hesitation, will raise in this situation. And here are the benefits it gives:

1. The flop suggests the opportunity to buy a strong combination (the so-called draw) - there are two cards of the same suit and 10 7 has a gap of only two cards. Thus, MrTricky could immediately place his draw, and our hero could then easily have the best hand at that time.
2. Even if MrTricky did have a pair (even 87s), our hero still has 28% to improve to a winning hand by the river, so his raise would still be justified (called a raise for value).
3. Raise creates the prerequisites for taking a free card on the turn (unless, of course, he improves our hero's hand).
4. If the flop doesn't hit MrFish, a raise will cause him to fold or call too bad.

Here's another example:

Again limited hold'em $10-$20, eight-man game. Our hero is in the big blind. The small blind is a fairly loose, passive player, plays reasonably well, but rarely causes problems. The first six players fold and the small blind delivers $5. Our hero, holding a wonderful 5 2, has nothing to do with seeing the flop and just checks. The flop comes Q Q 9 - the small blind checks. Without thinking for a long time, our hero does the same, and 5 appears on the turn (table Q Q 9 5). Now the small blind bets first. Two players in the game, in the pot $40. Our hero needs to put $20 and he starts thinking. Why did the small blind suddenly put a five on the turn after playing passively? There are several options:

1. Perhaps he also caught a pair on fives. In this case, the bank is likely to be split.
2. He can have any two hearts and tries to take the pot straight away by making a semi-bluff with a flush draw.
3. Also, our hero takes into account that he himself was not too aggressive and so the small blind can try to just steal the pot with an ordinary bluff.
4. The enemy could play his queen slowly (so-called slow-play).

After thinking it over, he decides that his hand is outright losing only to the last variation, which means that the call is justified. He even thinks to raise (because he knows to play aggressively), but the pot is too small, and his pair is too weak and everything ends with a simple call on his part. River brings 6 (table Q Q 9 5 6) and the small blind posts again. Now our hero doesn't think too much and immediately accepts. Of course, he is discouraged when his opponent shows 7 6 and takes the pot with his pair of sixes. The small blind had a leaky straight on the turn, so his bet against a single opponent was relatively reasonable. He got lucky on the river, but I think he deserved it as he was the only one who got active.

Our hero is a little upset, he feels that this rally - just like the previous one - somehow slipped through his fingers and he missed quite tangible victories. He decides that raising the turn would still be the right decision. He did have the best hand at the time, and a raise would most likely have forced the small blind to fold, because he would have been afraid that our hero was slow-playing a queen (or even a nine) and his chances were not even close to accepting. Rise with a leaky straight. Well, maybe it cost him the rise
on the turn, but I am inclined that it does not matter - the mistake was made earlier. First, let's go back to pre-flop.

When you are playing 1v1 or games where there are few players, the dynamics of the opposition between the blinds can become quite complex. For example, the small blind will very often only deliver half the bet with good cards in order to defend his much weaker hands later (when he is back in the small blind). But in a simple round robin game, when the small blind only delivers, and before that everyone passed, this most often means one thing: "I have a pretty weak hand, but I will not refuse to see the flop cheaply if you, the big blind, do not mind. " This is a poker game, which means you need to object! Remember, you need to get him to make another bet with just about any hand, except for really bad ones. Sometimes, the opponent sees that he is losing to you positionally, once again looks at his garbage in his hand and immediately passes. Needless to say, this is a great result for you! Also, next time in the same situation, he will think twice before delivering with all sorts of 59 offsuit.

However, in this situation hand 5 2, just falls under the definition of "really bad" hands, so even though I wouldn't criticize the raise here, it's still better to just check.

And here comes the flop Q Q 9and the small blind checks. Our hero looks at his 5 2 and checks back. STOP! This is the very mistake that most likely cost him a bank and another $40 from his pocket. Do you remember that the small blind is a passive player? He just delivered before the flop and now checks just as unintentionally.

What can he have? In the overwhelming majority of cases - absolutely nothing, moreover, practically no hand with which he can accept our bet is visible. By sending $10 to the bank, we are claiming $20, which means we need it to pass 33% times in order to break out. In this situation, I will assume that our bet has 75-80% to take the pot right away. Of course, the small blind may understand your attempt to steal the pot from him without having a special hand, but what can he do about it - accept with only a high-seven seven? A more experienced and cunning opponent can easily re-raise in response, but we keep in mind that we are opposed by a passive player who is unlikely to "unleash a war" for $20. He will fold his hand and keep playing, and you will be one big bet richer. This is not a big jackpot, but many players are happy to receive exactly that much per hour. Here you got them in 30 seconds without yawning.

The reason poker makes money is simple - some make fewer mistakes than others. You have to become that "someone", you can only make wrong moves when your opponents make them more often, and your mistakes must be small, while their mistakes must cost them dearly. If you constantly check and just accept other people's bets, your opponents won't have many opportunities to make a big mistake. If you yourself put first and rise at the right moments, they will make mistakes more often, and most importantly, these mistakes will cost them significantly more. So, take the initiative into your own hands, and as a result, you will take their money!