Balancing aggression in the micros

I'm currently a tight passive player. The reason for this is that it's working mostly because people keep betting into me with worse hands. By keeping my PF3bet% low and my postflop aggression also low I don't get into difficult spots and get some value.

Thing is I'm divided about aggression. On one hand I think that don't fold enough to play draws aggressively, on the other hand I think they fold too much if I raise for value. For this reason I'm as deceptive as possible and that usually means call/call/raise.

It's a obvious contradiction! I'm aware of it! So the question is: in which spots should I be aggressive? Value only? Does that include TPTK considering the overwhelming cbet% nowadays? Should I raise only monster draws or even ship it? Should I bet everytime someone does not cbet? What about PF should I keep passive to keep them in or flat QQ+ to 3bets?

Too many doubts... too little aggression...

I want to be more aggressive but I never felt that aggression IP without initiative was bringing me value. Being aggressive OOP with initiative is not an issue.

(just re-read the post... what a mess... waiting for criticism)

Agression, or any kind of play for that matter, depends on really who the villain is.

For example, if i'm against an opponent who isn't like to pay me off when i hit a draw, i'll play draws fast. However if i'm against a drooler, ill just call with my draws because they're likely to still pay me when I hit because they're dumb.

Sometimes i'll raise or even c/r TPTK if I know that my opponent is an idiot or plays ultra spewy when faced with aggression.

The point is, and I know it sounds cliche, to play the player. Pay attention to what hand you have an think about what you're opponent might do when faced with a certain action and then act accordingly. If you think he's the kind of opponent that folds all worse and calls/raises with better than TPTK then you're ****ing yourself over when you decide to raise your top pair.

Show some hands where you're having doubts about your aggression.

Rather than deciding if you should be aggro with certain hands like TPTK pay closer attention to the villain.

Break it down like this.
Hand Equity + Fold equity = Aggression

Most of what you say in OP is probably not true.

Care to elaborate, please?

As you said yourself, it's contradictory. I can pretty much guarantee that they don't always call when you semibluff and they don't always fold when you raise for value, they would have to be pretty amazing hand readers and no one can hand read for shit at micros.

Also, it doesn't make any sense that you keep your aggression low to get value. If they're betting into you when you flat they'll probably call when you raise -- you are losing value and also missing spots to bluff.

That's pretty much what I thought when I read that post.

Would you please post some hands, as this is an interesting topic;

me and a buddy a mine were just recently starting to look at this (study about), as i think I am actually a bit too aggressive. . . .

Yeah I'll try to do that. I think the whole issue is that it's been a long time since I do some reviewing so maybe I'm a bit lost.

As bgomez usually tells me when I say "I feel that X is happening all the time" maybe it's selective memory since it's obviously contradictory. Something just occured to me and it's related to bet sizing and fold equity but I need to review some sessions and try to get it.

Get allways the iniciative pf then...

Yes please

I've never worried much about balancing anything at the micros. No problems so far. They aren't paying any attention

When ranges are such that its more likely your opponent dosent have a hand than does, its better to be a bit more aggressive than optimal than a bit less.

To quote balugawhale "there are no good passive players"

there is good aggressive
there is bad aggressive
there is bad passive
there is no such thing as good passive

I agree with this. It's definitely better to keep your agg % above the optimal than below. Leak Buster shows average winrates over millions of hands for above optimal in the positive, while all winrates below the optimal in the negative.