How bad is being a passive poker player at a cash game. I'm talking about limping in every hand when i have cards like 3 5 off suit raise double the blind with a high card and medium card, and then raise 4x the blind wit someting good. and changing the betting too. like raise with 3 5 offsuit.

Ok standard passive play is bad always u got to be agressive always

Passive players get eaten up by the agressive ones as soon as they realise how passive they are

It will lose you money in the long run, say you bet your 35os, the flop comes up 75K, are you going to bet this? and if you are, by how much?
In the long run this type of play will lose you money because you"ll keep on playing rags, those rags will hit with overs on the board and you'll lose.
Players who play the style you mention become really predictable and tend to overvalue PPs.
If this style of play works for you, go with it, but if you find yourself rebuying into a table because your, lets say pocket 8s didn't hold up to an all-in then I think you have to re-evaluate your play.

[quote=shinedown.45;541745], the flop comes up 75K, are you going to bet this?

dont you know the answer to that shine hehe of course u bet it awwwrin obv it is monster of course you are ahead

Maybe it's just the people I play with, but I have always enjoyed this style of play at my home games and especially in the bodog free rolls. I like to test my table a little bit online to see if I can play this way, if a lot of hands get limped all the way around I usually end up being able to hit/bluff my way into profit as long as I keep a tab on how people bet and don't call a raise at all unless I have something decent. I mix it up a bit of course, avoiding showdowns of the really lucky hits and the bluffs, playing my AA the same way I play my 56 off... but overall I enjoy it if it's possible. There's definitely situations where it isn't, my home game seems to be that way now, I missed out on a few months of play and they all switched up their styles, it's not so friendly pre-flop anymore...

Originally Posted by Stefanicov

Ok standard passive play is bad always u got to be agressive always

Passive players get eaten up by the agressive ones as soon as they realise how passive they are

I agree very true

There seems to be a problem with the terminology here.

What the OP is describing is Loose play, not Passive. In fact, the style he is describing sounds Loose/Aggressive, since he describes how he will raise preflop.

Briefly:

Loose = plays a lot of hands
Tight = plays only good hands

Passive = checks and calls, rarely raises
Aggressive = often bets and raises, seldom checks

So there are four broad styles:

Loose/Passive
Loose/Aggressive
Tight/Passive
Tight/Aggressive

(though each may be further broken down).

Apologies if all of that sent the more experienced members to sleep.

I think the question here is "Why is being aggressive better than being passive?".

The simple answer is, being aggressive gives you two ways to win: your opponent can fold, OR you can end up with the best hand. Being passive, you are dependent on the cards; you need to show down the best hand to win.

Ideally we don't want to be dependent on the cards to win at poker (since luck will theoretically break even over the long run for everyone).

Aggression is the key to understanding phrases like "Good players don't need good cards to win".

Certainly we have to know when aggression is unwarranted (e.g., vs a calling station when we don't have a hand), and certainly in some lower limit games you are going to be more card dependent because of this (you will have to show down the best hand). And many of these games can be beaten simply by playing your cards patiently (and perhaps some of these games can NOT be beat with a LAG style?).

But if you want to play non card contingent poker, or play poker at a higher level, aggression is the key.

There are other reason aggression is beneficial (for example, maximizing your gains/wins), but I think the above is really the most distilled basic reason.

yea but being aggressive can also lose you more chips than being passive.. but i dont know of any passive professional players

Originally Posted by PoochMasterFlex

yea but being aggressive can also lose you more chips than being passive.. but i dont know of any passive professional players

This is an extremely simplistic view. Being passive will cost you chips in the long run, in more ways than one. For example, if you check and give a free card to someone who otherwise would have folded. Or you simply failed to make the most money that you could on a hand when you were way ahead-- that's money you "lost" by not maximizing your +EV situations (see this guy w aa).

I think you need to find more of a balance here. Being aggressive against the right opponent in the right situation is, generally, a winning strategy. That said, being passive against the right opponent in the right situation can also be profitable. Each style has a counter style. Mix up your game to include the profitable bits of each.

how aggressive is too aggressive?

too agressive is when u are not winning

Originally Posted by Schatzdog

I think you need to find more of a balance here. Being aggressive against the right opponent in the right situation is, generally, a winning strategy. That said, being passive against the right opponent in the right situation can also be profitable. Each style has a counter style. Mix up your game to include the profitable bits of each.

No one is disagreeing with this. I am simply trying to distill aggressive vs. passive down to the most basic argument for aggression, WITHOUT getting into specific situations.

what about countering aggression with even more aggression?

That is where the very top players are coz they are all agressive and if u gain tht skill u will become v rich from this game

Originally Posted by PoochMasterFlex

what about countering aggression with even more aggression?

Usually this is a bad idea. Maniacs will usually be better at being maniacs than you will...

Standard procedure:

1. Play big hands fast.
2. Play total nothing hands fast a bit more than you normally would. This will make 1. (above) more effective.
If you want him to stop picking on you specifically, try coming over the top with total garbage one time (94o), and SHOW the hand, whether he folds or reraises and you have to fold; doesn't matter, the point is to warn him that you are capable of playing back, making you a less appealing target.
3. Call down with marginal hands a bit more than you normally would; getting aggro vs. a maniac with something like K9s on a Q92 rainbow flop might seem like a good idea at the time, but he will show you a better hand too often to make it profitable IF you play a big pot; call down if the turn and river are reasonable: i.e., let him do the betting for you.

To sum up, play trash and monsters the same, call down with the middle stuff.

Just be prepared to try and get muscled out of pots. Passive is like playing limit, but use Check Raise to your advantage as a passive player. Its probably the strongest move you can make as a passive presence.

i disagree. this is the most typical thing. if im LAGing ill go over the top of c/r's a lot. the only c/r that works is a shove.

If your worried about losing too many chips being aggressive than you'll easily get pushed around.

Someone said its usually a bad idea countering aggression with aggression, ennnnh, I think this is 50/50 and I actually prefer countering with aggression. It definitely makes sense just to call when you have an aggressive maniac on your hands or you have the absolute nuts, but every aggressive player isn't a maniac. Most people are taught just to call the bully but sometimes this will get you in hot water, especially when your out of position. What will happen is that you will have an aggressive player on your hands that will sometimes take your checks for weakness and will fire 3 shells at you to test your courage.

Say for example you have ace jack and and aggressive player raises it up, the flop comes and you hit your ace and he fires a probing bet 3/4ths the pot and you call. 4th street comes and to you it seems a blank and he bets the pot, now your thinking your hand is good but your also thinking is my hand marginal, so when you call this bet your thinking to yourself I hope he checks on the river for a showdown, UNH UNH. River comes seemingly blank and you check and the aggressive player fires another shell, this time either its the same as the pot, or somewhat more than the pot, OR even all in which would seemingly be out of nowhere. Now your faced with a tough decision, you could have him beat, but than again he could have ak or aq, or he could have just been betting with a pocket pair and he could have hit on the flop turn or river for a set.

Now your playing for a big pot with a marginal hand and you have no clue where you stand in the hand because you never raised to see your opponents strength and since he was last to act he has the maximum opportunity to bluff you, but at the same time you dont know if he thought you were weak based on your checks or if he really has his hand.

I see this happen all the time, people calling bets thinking that the aggressor won't bet on the next street and each street they bet the person that check seems to become weaker and weaker. About 7/10 your going to end up laying your hand down, because your not confident or your going to be really beat because the aggressor's bets allowed him to fish for 2 streets after the flop and he very well could have caught 2 pair or even a set because of this.

Reasons like this is why I think its good to counter with aggression, because all in all you STILL HAVE TO PROTECT YOUR HAND, so I would raise on the flop and his following action may help you to determine what to do, he may reraise you then and there hinting for you to laydown or if you know him well you might know to come back over top all in over his reraise, most likely he's only gonna reraise with a premium hand and you'll get away from this hand with a smaller loss, he may have a pocket pair and didn't hit it on the flop and a raise could take the hand down there, he could even have suited connectors and hit one of his cards and a raise could also take it down, these two situations you wouldnt allow the aggressor to suckout on your hand by seeing more streets.

Sometimes its cool to call the aggressor, but sometimes you have to protect your hand no matter what he has and at the same time you need to find out where you stand in the hand and simply calling all the time could get you in big trouble if you don't have the absolute nuts. Even with the nuts you should raise, because the aggressor is capable of having anything and you don't want him to catch a flush on you cus when it comes what are you going to do with an overbet to the pot with your straight thats no longer good if he actually has the flush.

You have to know when its cool to check call an aggressor and when it isn't. Your reading skills have to be impeccable to come over top with complete garbage all in and if he calls you and wins than his confidence is going to boost and everyone else may become more confident when playing pots with you, and you definitely don't want that.

heres what it comes down to in a cash game, if your passive the following things will happen:
-you'll get your blinds stolen much more (you'll see alot less free blind play)
-you'll lose much more when you defend your blinds because you'll most likely end up laying down whatever cards you have to continuous aggressive bets
-MOST IMPORTANTLY, you'll have a hard time getting your monsters paid off because your play will look out of character, especially if you bet at the pot, red flags will go up in your opponents heads. (the point of being aggressive is getting your monsters paid off and picking up alot of small pots, therefore making up for all the chips you lose when you get called on bluffs)
-you'll lose a lot of hands to players that bet there draws when you really have the best hand with middle and bottom pair
-you will get bluff raised a lot more

Calling stations always have to make tough decisions

Originally Posted by young hova

If your worried about losing too many chips being aggressive than you'll easily get pushed around.

Someone said its usually a bad idea countering aggression with aggression, ennnnh, I think this is 50/50 and I actually prefer countering with aggression. It definitely makes sense just to call when you have an aggressive maniac on your hands or you have the absolute nuts, but every aggressive player isn't a maniac. Most people are taught just to call the bully but sometimes this will get you in hot water, especially when your out of position. What will happen is that you will have an aggressive player on your hands that will sometimes take your checks for weakness and will fire 3 shells at you to test your courage. Say for example you have ace jack and and aggressive player raises it up, the flop comes and you hit your ace and he fires a probing bet 3/4ths the pot and you call. 4th street comes and to you it seems a blank and he bets the pot, now your thinking your hand is good but your also thinking is my hand marginal, so when you call this bet your thinking to yourself I hope he checks on the river for a showdown, UNH UNH. River comes seemingly blank and you check and the aggressive player fires another shell, this time either its the same as the pot, or somewhat more than the pot, OR even all in which would seemingly be out of nowhere. Now your faced with a tough decision, you could have him beat, but than again he could have ak or aq, or he could have just been betting with a pocket pair and he could have hit on the flop turn or river for a set. Now your playing for a big pot with a marginal hand and you have no clue where you stand in the hand because you never raised to see your opponents strength and since he was last to act he has the maximum opportunity to bluff you, but at the same time you dont know if he thought you were weak based on your checks or if he really has his hand. I see this happen all the time, people calling bets thinking that the aggressor won't bet on the next street and each street they bet the person that check seems to become weaker and weaker. About 7/10 your going to end up laying your hand down, because your not confident or your going to be really beat because the aggressor's bets allowed him to fish for 2 streets after the flop and he very well could have caught 2 pair or even a set because of this. Reasons like this is why I think its good to counter with aggression, because all in all you STILL HAVE TO PROTECT YOUR HAND, so I would raise on the flop and his following action may help you to determine what to do, he may reraise you then and there hinting for you to laydown or if you know him well you might know to come back over top all in over his reraise, most likely he's only gonna reraise with a premium hand and you'll get away from this hand with a smaller loss, he may have a pocket pair and didn't hit it on the flop and a raise could take the hand down there, he could even have suited connectors and hit one of his cards and a raise could also take it down, these two situations you wouldnt allow the aggressor to suckout on your hand by seeing more streets. Sometimes its cool to call the aggressor, but sometimes you have to protect your hand no matter what he has and at the same time you need to find out where you stand in the hand and simply calling all the time could get you in big trouble if you don't have the absolute nuts. Even with the nuts you should raise, because the aggressor is capable of having anything and you don't want him to catch a flush on you cus when it comes what are you going to do with an overbet to the pot with your straight thats no longer good if he actually has the flush. You have to know when its cool to check call an aggressor and when it isn't. Your reading skills have to be impeccable to come over top with complete garbage all in and if he calls you and wins than his confidence is going to boost and everyone else may become more confident when playing pots with you, and you definitely don't want that.

heres what it comes down to in a cash game, if your passive the following things will happen:
-you'll get your blinds stolen much more (you'll see alot less free blind play)
-you'll lose much more when you defend your blinds because you'll most likely end up laying down whatever cards you have to continuous aggressive bets
-MOST IMPORTANTLY, you'll have a hard time getting your monsters paid off because your play will look out of character, especially if you bet at the pot, red flags will go up in your opponents heads. (the point of being aggressive is getting your monsters paid off and picking up alot of small pots, therefore making up for all the chips you lose when you get called on bluffs)
-you'll lose a lot of hands to players that bet there draws when you really have the best hand with middle and bottom pair
-you will get bluff raised a lot more

(^This format is unreadable).
As far as I got into it, however, I just want to note that my previous comments were directed at playing vs. a maniac, sorry, I was not more clear there.

Originally Posted by aliengenius

^This format is unreadable

I concur.

what do you mean by this format is unreadable? New to the forum, so a bit confused

Sorry, Hova.

Primarily, we mean break it up into paragraphs.

Any large body of text is vastly easier for the reader to follow if each new point or idea is presented as a new paragraph. It both helps him to separate one idea from the next and assists in the actual process of reading. In a large and monotonous block, you blink and you have lost your place.

I read your paragraph Hova and I agree with most of it. The one thing to add though is that there are many levels of aggressiveness and you can't treat them the same way. Some players are so aggressive that its ok to be passive when your hand is strong because they will keep doing the betting for you and if you raise they're probably done putting money in the pot and you lost value.

In general though, you should never show weakness to an aggressive player unless you're setting him up with a strong hand. On this I totally agree with you. The passive strategy is not good because you'll never know where you stand and he constantly will force you into very tough decisions, possibly for all your chips. The hand ex. that you made with AJ is a good one.

Originally Posted by Egon Towst

Sorry, Hova.

Primarily, we mean break it up into paragraphs.

Any large body of text is vastly easier for the reader to follow if each new point or idea is presented as a new paragraph. It both helps him to separate one idea from the next and assists in the actual process of reading. In a large and monotonous block, you blink and you have lost your place.

Yeah you are right, I'll keep that in mind next time I post because I definitely agree with that

Yeah Joe, thats why I said its about 50/50 (well I play it more like 75/25 with the higher being my more aggressive play), because you definitely have the maniac thats just so outrageous that he'll just donk his chips off to you passively

My main point is before you consider playing passive you should first evaluate how much you like your hand, than based on what you know about the aggressive player you gotta put them on a hand, and if you can do that and based on what the board shows than you can determine from there whether you need to protect your hand or not.

If you can't determine what that person has and there are draws out there and you don't think you can call a big bet if one of the draws hits you miswell bet so he's not getting odds to call his draw if you think your hand was good (even though most maniacs don't understand this concept)

I had a hand I played today in this sit n go rounder it was this one player, true definition of a maniac. blinds are 10/20 and this dude literally calls every hand, even moderate raises especially if he has position. If the pot is checked to him he's guaranteed to bet the pot (if its one thing I hate its a online player that either bets the pot or doesn't bet the pot at all). he would bet the pot shell after shell and would stab at the pot with a potsized bet out of position with minimal callers to the hand

So a hand comes up where maniac is in middle position he's got like no callers in front of him and he raises it up the minimum bb so its 40 to play (starting stacks 1500 by the way), someone else calls in front of him and I call with kq suited and the flop comes qc 8c 5d. Maniac's first to act and bets the pot which is about 160, the next player calls im sure there was probably someone else in the hand that folded but im in position, so I raise it up 350 making sure to tax any draw chasers. Maniac thinks for about a second and than reraises all in, and the next player calls his all in.

Now at this point im thinking this is strange, he raised minimum bb, and I hate this raise especially in the early stages, but the thing was even though he called every hand even most of the raised ones, he never had literally raised the pot before so I was thinking even though his raise is small he definitely has to have some type of hand because he wouldn't raise otherwise. I have no real clue how he plays but he pushed all-in like he knows that he has a certified hand. So I figured he might have Aq and I could be outkicked, but even if he didnt I knew that he probably had something that could beat my queens with king kicker. Plus I figured he would've just called my raise if he had a decent hand based on the way he was playing because he wasn't deceptive enough to switch up his style.

The player that called his all in hand, I knew that I had his hand beat on the flop, because if he was stronger he wouldve raised the minimum raise preflop and if he had him on the flop for sure I figured he would've raised either to protect his hands from draws or simply because he would believe his hand is better.

So I think to myself I just can't call this all in bet not knowing fully how the maniac plays without at least 2 pair so I fold

Maniac turns over pocket aces (if he would've just called he probably couldve trapped me, but like I said I knew he wasn't really capable of trapping me like this, he had a mindset that he wanted to be the most aggressive). The other player ended up calling with a flush draw and ended up drawing out on him.

My point with this is If I didn't raise I think I might have got myself in hot water with this hand. Even though I lost about about 400 chips, I gained the information needed to know that I had to fold that hand.

If I would've just called than not only do I have to worry about draws, but judging by how aggressive he was when he had absolutely nothing I knew that I would have to be willing to call a pot sized bet on the turn no matter what card came. The turn came the flush card, which may have made it easier for me to lay down but it was no way I was putting maniac on that hand particularly and I still had no clue how the other player that called his all in played, so pending on what he did I might've been able to lay my hand down with the sit n go on the line.

If the flush card doesn't come on the turn than when the maniac bets the pot than I'm left with 2 actions, all in or fold, because I know no matter what he has he's gonna bet on the river. Since he's a maniac I might push over top in that situation because I know he could just be overplaying an underpair or just trying to continue his preflop aggression just trying to make a statement.

For the most part on the turn if he bets the pot I wouldve thought well he was gonna bet that regardless, and since his preflop raise was minimal his hand can't really be but so good (when I've never played with someone I typically associate how a hand would be played by an average person until I can assume otherwise based on how they play). For some reason I really don't think I wouldve been worried about the middle players actions, unless he goes all in over top on the turn with out no flush showing. For the most part I wouldve said this dude is a maniac, if he had an over pair he wouldve raised more preflop and I say my chances of going all in on the turn with no flush card is I say about 70% yes, 30% no

Originally Posted by young hova

If you can't determine what that person has and there are draws out there and you don't think you can call a big bet if one of the draws hits you miswell bet so he's not getting odds to call his draw if you think your hand was good (even though most maniacs don't understand this concept]

I agree with that.

Your hand is a perfect example of when to apply this, because besides the draw out there you really need to know if your hand is best and reraising is the only way to find out. Plus a smooth call to an aggressive player smells weakness, and your hand wasn't exactly that strong so you put yourself in position to escape it cheaply w/o calling him all the way down which is more expensive. Well played sir.

The player that called his all in hand, I knew that I had his hand beat on the flop, because if he was stronger he wouldve raised the minimum raise preflop and if he had him on the flop for sure I figured he would've raised either to protect his hands from draws or simply because he would believe his hand is better.

Be very, very, very careful with this, as vilain could have the lower pockets, or even pocket queens for a set. Some people think that to reraise, you have to at least have QQ, KK or AA and will just call a small raise with almost any two cards.

Also, a lot of peopl are passive on the flop and will just call, even with the better hand, so be careful about generalization. If everybody played like Slansky, sure it would've been a raise or fold situation , but peope like to gamble or disguise their hand.

On another note, his call all-in was an indicator that he was either drawing to the flush (or that he had hit trips), wich put you in a spot where you're not in position to call, not because of the guy with pocket aces, but because you were practically drawing dead with the hand that you have beat on the flop still has a lot of live cards to help it. Plus, the all-in was either extreme weakness or strength, and with already one caller, we better have something to show for it if we call.

Good raise and good laydown, but this is a 100% chance of me folding, even if my opponents are complete donks since my hand is very marginal with two people in the pot all-in. The best situation to test your skills would have been if you were in middle position with flush guy still to come. How would you have played this hand if guy #1 goes all-in ? Do you call ?

Young hova, I went ahead and edited your first post just to break it up into paragraphs. I hope you don't mind. It's obvious you spent a lot of time on it, and I wanted to make sure everyone who views this thread will take the time to read it.

thanks joe and thanks juice, I do appreciate that

jeff, I knew the middle position player wouldnt reraise without a good handlike that, but at the same time, he wasnt even calling the blind, he was playing fairly tight so I knew he had to either have an ace or couldve maybe had a pocket pair under 9 to call double the bb (even though its only 60). the texture of the flop I knew he couldnt have flopped 2 pair because he was that tight that he wouldnt make that loose of a call, but he couldve hit a lower set, judging by the few hands I seen him play I couldnt put him on a set of queens (of course thats why its best to stay away from confrontations like this early in a tourney)

I just had a hunch he wouldnt call with a set with a bet and a check raise, your right it ain't good to make these generalizations, but in the specific position I was put in I was forced to put to use what little I knew about him and how I though a player would play based on how he had been playing.

as far as the all-in, that definitely made my hand look marginal lol, but I am still a favorite over an a8 flush draw, but of course I couldn't call regardless.

If I was middle position I still wouldve raised because as tight as the flush player was I know he's folding for sure to a reraise if he doesnt like his hand then and there. In this case he's calling and if the original raiser reraises I have to fold, not only because its too much action, but I have no clue what the flush person is thinking and my hand isn't that good. If I had 2 pair, flush draw or not, based on my reads there, No way i'm not calling the all in.

I play a passive- aggressive game.Tournys in the beginning I play passive till the blinds go up unless I hit a monster or I notice a player makes a mistake. Ring games the same in the beginning I look for tells, betting habits,look to see what they play [cards] then I play aggressive. So being passive is not a bad thing at anytime as long as you know when and why. Yes to win you have to be aggressive this is what took me the longest to learn. The best feelin in poker is when you can get the table to fold just because you raise.[ with 7 2] so keep playing these guys can get a little deep sometimes but I learned alot on this site