Aggressive vs. PAssive

[messats]

poker strategy

to be a professional poker player you have to be exceptional in all areas, passive and aggressive. picking your spots to bluff and getting reads on opponents.

 

[scubed]

I have been playing for a bit and noticed two different styles of plays. I was wondering which is better long term?

Learn to play all kinds of styles THEN apply the style that will be most likely to win against EACH opponent. Meaning, there is not ONE correct way to play, it depends on a lot of other factors - so it is good to be able to play all kinds of styles.

 

[perrypip]

Most players play too passively when they start that's why aggression is emphasized. But there is really a balance point between the two. Playing medium strength hands aggressively will get calls from stronger hands and folds from weaker hands. Instead check or call with medium strength hands to try to get to a cheap showdown and defend against bluffing.

 

[Szachajevy]

Both styles are good, you just must to learn when to use one or another

 

[xexeu]

I always try to play both sides when I need to, I’m passive and when I need to, I’m aggressive, but as an amateur, I don’t know if I’m right

 

[KozakAlex]

I have been playing for a bit and noticed two different styles of plays. I was wondering which is better long term?

It is better when the player is able to adapt to the current opponents. But only the best poker players play this way. This is not an easy game some people think that everything depends on luck. But the best tends not to open the cards and force to discard the opponent. Watch live tournaments and you can learn a lot.

 

[the_bridge222]

A combination of both would be the best, it also depends on what types of tournaments you play and the tournament phases. Sometimes the aggressiveness is conditioned by the position and the chips you have.

 

[angelamsmith05]

I think you have to balance both. I tend to be passive but have to work on being aggressive.

 

[Rob Hobson]

But don't confuse be aggressive with be stupid, like many players we see around, betting and raising with no sense at all, just to be seeing as an "aggressive player".

 

[flyinghas]

In tournaments a mix of both is always the best way , but depending on the big blinds you have and the cards you get.

 

[messats]

game play

today i played a bit passive and was able to finish 54 out of 5000. and i could have gone further but had an emergency. this goes to show there are days we must adjust our game plan

 

[CaPnKrUnCh]

aggressive is always better just know how to be aggressive.. doesn't mean raising any two cards on the button, or never folding your blinds to a steal attempt.. any calling down or re raising any flopped pair.

being aggressive is a balance of selection, and exploiting the other player making as much profit as possible.. its kind of hard to exploit somebody when your passive unless your trapping and the other player is just bluffing into you when your holding a extremely strong hand.

 

[samsonand]

an aggressive can lose his chips in a bad decision and a passive could be the victim of each blufing

 

[1nsomn1a]

use a style of play that will help you beat your opponents, this is the most important thing.

 

[Luvepoker]

I think aggressive is the way to go but you need to not be to aggressive as well. Being over aggressive is just as bad as not being aggressive.

 

[arashsgr]

aggressive

the first thing a poker player should know how to play poker, there are 4 types of poker players in the world tight & loose aggressive, tight, and loose-passive. everyone knows that the looser you play poker the failure is more, so it's better to play aggressive and mostly in a tight way so that in long run you can benefit more. play tight and aggressive with your best knowledge so you get the best result out of it

 

[fegyo]

When the majority of your opponents are playing passive (tight) play loose and when most of your opponents are playing aggressive (loose) play tight.

 

[florestaftw]

I think that the 2 are good tools to be more versatile. an aggressive player can win a lot as well as lose a lot. a passive player can win little and lose little. the combination of these 2 would be the ideal

 

[Subel007]

I think you must play "your" game,plenty of stategies

 

[frnandoh]

Many profitable players plays a little bit different from each other, some players more agressive others more passive, but IMO that is just a little little difference, because what make a player better is the skillful to do good choices and it could mean that exist one single correct action for every single hand in poker and that differences are because we, humans, are uncapable to process all data and get an aswer. There will be ocasions when we have to be agressives, others passive and we have to be ready to evaluate them.

 

[RustyRed83]

I think learning all styles are important. Adapting them in game, depending on how the other players are performing and there styles.

 

[Stringy]

I agree learning both is key as constantly being agressive can lead to a quick loss and being too passive will likely just lead to a slow loss, but being adaptable and unpredictable is what will work best

 

[001Jaguar]

Aggressive play you need to play different times my opinion it’s a short term rolling stack passive play just waiting for the right cards and playing where the chances over 60 for you it’s good but if you play both passive and agresive time to times it’s kind a hard other players what you have so I do both at the same table

 

[VITOS]

To become a good poker player, you have to play aggressively, so the best style of play will be something in between TAG and LAG. There is no doubt that aggressive drawing of your hands is much better than passive, many winning players will say that tight-aggressive style of play is the best way to win money in poker, because you will always enter the hand with strong hands and play them aggressively, maximizing your winnings.

 

[Akuana]

I can't play aggressively. And I would like to learn. But when I try, I quickly lose.