re: Poker & Usefullness of AF (or lack thereof)
Well my example was just that, an example. If someone bets 10%, calls 0.5%, and folds 90.5% they have a 20 AF, it's not just infinity. And it comes up with infinity when you get a positive number divided by 0.
But my comment wasn't about results anyway, I'm just talking about the methodology behind it. Why would a fold be considered neutral but a call unaggressive? I don't care what results it comes up with (well I do, but not for now), I just was using examples to show the flawed methodology, treating a fold as neither aggressive nor unaggressive when most would think it unaggressive, and a call the most unaggressive move of all. The aggression % treats both folds and calls as unaggressive and I like that stat much more than the traditional AF. I'm just wondering why AF is considered one of the major stats used by pretty much everyone to describe a player. Why isn't aggression % used instead?