Today's course topic is about The Benefits of Aggression.

If you have not yet read Day 2 and watched the video for Day 2 - take a few minutes now to do that and then come back here to discuss it:

The Benefits of Aggression

Now that you understand the 3 types of actions you can take - passive, neutral or aggressive - let's discuss the best times to use aggressive action.

If you have any questions about it- or about any of the hands discussed in Day 2 of the ebook or the Day 2 video - this is the place to ask them!

Both Collin and Katie will be available to assist you as well as other members of the CardsChat community.

Course is live now - let's discuss aggression once you get through chapter 2!

Absolutely, hit us up with any questions on Day 2 once you're ready!

Finished Day #2.

I liked the quiz question on the video "What do you think the opponent doen't want to happen?".

And I hope till the end of the course to understand that KJ raise on the river....lol.

Tomorrow with Day #3.

I will take one #Day per day. I want to study the course thoroughly.

Aggression is a big key, today's play is so different, I play $1/2 at Foxwoods and $1/3 at Encore Boston. What I see today it is more a post flop play more than pre flop. Pre flop does give you some information of a players bet, but... I see many at times limp in with A's or K's making it a bit more difficult to judge their aggression. Then the funnel of hand ranges post flop can become more difficult to judge. If you as the player take the aggression the board still might dictate the other players.

Originally Posted by Luvart

Finished Day #2.

I liked the quiz question on the video "What do you think the opponent doen't want to happen?".

And I hope till the end of the course to understand that KJ raise on the river....lol.

Tomorrow with Day #3.

I will take one #Day per day. I want to study the course thoroughly.

I think that is a very good idea. It will give you time to absorb what you learn each day.

Originally Posted by onecardsteve

Aggression is a big key, today's play is so different, I play $1/2 at Foxwoods and $1/3 at Encore Boston. What I see today it is more a post flop play more than pre flop. Pre flop does give you some information of a players bet, but... I see many at times limp in with A's or K's making it a bit more difficult to judge their aggression. Then the funnel of hand ranges post flop can become more difficult to judge. If you as the player take the aggression the board still might dictate the other players.

It is interesting to note that tendencies and play change over time.

I definitely see your point - "Who would you rather play against: A passive opponent who’s mainly checking and calling or an aggressive opponent who’s betting and raising a lot?"

I find it more relaxing to play against passive players, but I tend to lose more to them than aggressive players. The aggressive players are largely playing their cards up so I usually know where I stand with them.

I find the passive players are often the most difficult to read, quietly sitting there with a QQ over-pair or a flopped set, passively calling my made hand/semi-bluff bets. Till I start feeling more confident about my hand as an actual winner on the turn and/or river. Only to find that I've been successfully trapped/out-drawn. Especially in those situations where their QQ pocket pair becomes a full house and my OESD/Flush draw completes on the river.

There are so many nuances. This is not a simple game, by any stretch. I'm finding your course to be very helpful! The trick is to apply the right bit of knowledge in the right spot at the right time.

Originally Posted by Luvart

Finished Day #2.

I liked the quiz question on the video "What do you think the opponent doen't want to happen?".

And I hope till the end of the course to understand that KJ raise on the river....lol.

Tomorrow with Day #3.

I will take one #Day per day. I want to study the course thoroughly.

That’s a great way to do it! Best of luck and please let us know if you have any questions!

aggressive pre flop, nothing flop, passive turn, and aggressive river.

day 2 done

default play - aggressively

Originally Posted by marvinsytan

day 2 done

default play - aggressively

Way to go!

Marvinsytan and I Live Poker, great work getting through the first two days so quickly and posting in the threads

Colin, as I was watching the video and listening to your narration your voice reminded me of Kermit the frog. Please, I mean this in a very good way, your voice has an inflection on certain words where I would imagine Kermit was coaching me.

Regarding the video where a player makes a small bet of 40 and you said that the player probably has nothing...I sometimes use this as a trap move when I put out a "mini-feeler bet" and if someone followed your advice and raised, I would put out a re-raise priced to that person's chips because I would have something very strong like trips or KK.

I`m looking to sharpen my skills to play like "gettingpwned" and "Pluribus." Regarding Passivity/Aggression/Neutrality (selective bipolarity) how do the above two "players" respond optimally (how much and what kind of information is being decided upon) in order to associate numbers to P/A/N....note that these first letters when taken backwards spell NAP.. can "sitting-out" also be an optimal play?

As a side-bar, if you remember the old "1983 War Games" movie, the computer "Whopper" (aka Pluribus in this context) told Matthew Broderick that sometimes the best move is not to play. The reason I added this is because during a poker game in Niagara Falls some years ago, a player slow-rolled a win and was found in a dumpster the next day. Some games are (unintentionally and not) very high stakes so good etiquette is always appreciated!

I have a lot of difficulties in being aggressive in poker, because as games in micro tournaments the players do not place correct bets and play strong hands or fights or that make it difficult to read when the hands are played by my hand. So, really leave my tournament in question. I think with bigger buyins or regular players they place bigger bets accordingly. Even though it is more difficult to read regularly the development of our game it is not "in the hand of chance".

Mattryder, I agree with your post 100%.

As for the video, I like the idea of the three levels of aggression (aggressive, passive and neutral). I had not previously used the term neutral, but it makes perfect sense. I do find it interesting that in the final hand example, all three levels of aggression were used. This should be an a-ha moment for all who think that aggressive play must mean that we have our foot on the gas all the time, every time.

I do have a question however. In two of the videos, when it came to the turn, the hero did not raise using the familiar rationale that "only a better hand would call". When the river was a brick in one of that hands, why was this rationale thrown out on the river? It seems like we should not be waffling back and forth from street to street with our rationale. Otherwise we can fall into the trap of justifying any action we take.

I play the most of the time more passive but for me it's more of a mindset what i must change to play more aggressive.

Do you have also tips how to change the mindset, because when i try to start to play more aggressive after some time my play changes back to passive.

Poly, I'll take the Kermit thing as a compliment

NW, the "only a better hand will call" idea is discussed a lot more on the future day. But it is absolutely most applicable at the river, and least applicable on the early streets. A lot more discussion on this to come!

I always thought I was aggressive, boy was I wrong after seeing this video. Thanks for the lesson. Can't wait to use this in my game.

Thanks for the video - really appreciate the insight on what’s passive, neutral, and aggressive. As a fairly aggressive player myself, I have no fear taking initiative betting first and c-betting. However, I’m working on incorporating big raises in the right spot. Usually I raise with the nuts, but I want to get better at check raising and raising as a bluff!

An interesting line of a hand on the river. Impressed 10,9s with a third pair with an average kicker! Very much. It is difficult to call all-in with the first pair, and with the second it is even more difficult.
KJ is played along a similar line, but more carefully. I think that if the opponent had a Q hand with a small kicker, then he drove himself into a trap.
What do you think someone would fold such a hand as AQ or KQ?
Great examples that demonstrate the strength of a position and the advantage of aggression.

Originally Posted by Tu Ng

I always thought I was aggressive, boy was I wrong after seeing this video. Thanks for the lesson. Can't wait to use this in my game.

Thanks and I can totally relate to what you’re saying! Back when I transitioned from playing super turbos to mttsngs, I wasn’t nearly aggressive enough post-flop at first!

Originally Posted by natelearnspoker

Thanks for the video - really appreciate the insight on what’s passive, neutral, and aggressive. As a fairly aggressive player myself, I have no fear taking initiative betting first and c-betting. However, I’m working on incorporating big raises in the right spot. Usually I raise with the nuts, but I want to get better at check raising and raising as a bluff!

That’s great! And it’s much better that you’re already taking the initiative and c-betting!

Originally Posted by ronn6583

An interesting line of a hand on the river. Impressed 10,9s with a third pair with an average kicker! Very much. It is difficult to call all-in with the first pair, and with the second it is even more difficult.
KJ is played along a similar line, but more carefully. I think that if the opponent had a Q hand with a small kicker, then he drove himself into a trap.
What do you think someone would fold such a hand as AQ or KQ?
Great examples that demonstrate the strength of a position and the advantage of aggression.

Great points and yes it can be difficult sometimes to call all ins as wide as we should; it’s an easy thing I think for players to incorrectly talk themselves out of— even with relatively strong holdings!

"If you're unsure take the Aggressive route" I think I should practice this more than I do, but in moderation. If I were to act aggressively without thought to what is happening around me it could be a disaster, it actually has been before, but I still like the idea of it. I just don't want to be a maniac.

Originally Posted by JoeKampman

"If you're unsure take the Aggressive route" I think I should practice this more than I do, but in moderation. If I were to act aggressively without thought to what is happening around me it could be a disaster, it actually has been before, but I still like the idea of it. I just don't want to be a maniac.

If you want to practice that even more then cardchat events are perfect for it.
Also there's nothing wrong acting like a maniac (in poker table) ...

Seeing the day 2 class, I think I am a more passive than aggressive player. I have to change that from being a passive player to an aggressive player to be successful. Starting in preflop and so increase the stack.

Sometimes the two first lessons is all you need to win. Aggressive play in position is really difficult to confront. In the example hand, if it were me playing it, the villain would probably have had 89s...

When i begin playing poker and have a pair of As in hand.
i used to play neutral or passive thinking that's the good idea because too much player will not fold and finally i will win a big pot.
But with more playing time i understand that is a completely false way to play.
i loose with this way too much pair of As hand, and then i begin to raise every pair of As hand in the pre-flop and i find that i m winning more hand.
After that i definitely become an aggressive player .
Finally, with this video i understand that i was in the good road of poker

Soo hate playing against aggressive players. With great risk, comes great reward.

This course is very interesting. As a beginner recreational player, it's very important to have some concepts lain down in such simple manner (e.g. aggression is (bets + raises) ratio to calls).

As said earlier in this topic, I too thought I played aggressively - until this video.

I particularly enjoyed the bit when Collin said that "Calls" are the only passive move (as opposed to checks or folds).

Learning a lot. Digesting information and taking notes. Thanks for sharing this great course!

I enjoyed the day 2 lesson, thanks again for doing this. Aggression is something that I constantly have to work on when playing live poker, I'm just naturally not an aggressive person so, It doesn't feel right. It's not really a problem online, I think because I'm more disconnected from it.

Thanks a lot Baea, and I agree it's very interesting that poker only has one passive play

Thanks wst, we appreciate that!

I find this interesting, but I'm also finding that these days about 80% of the table in tourneys are all playing aggressive; not saying they are all playing well, but there can be about 5-7 on a 9 ring table all trying to out-aggro each other, with few willing to lay down anything so this isn't working most of the time.

I admit I play micro stakes and FreeRolls, and maybe it changes at higher stakes (above $3) but I manage to make the money fairly frequently, even so. I'm sure this will be covered later, but I think many players these days read so much about aggressive play and think this means 'every hand' or 'every second hand' or 'never fold just get more aggressive', they are not choosing their moments and combining their aggression with all the other tools i.e strong starting hand, position, other players style, table personality, chip stack, etc.

Great article none the less, and good to know there is a 'neutral' and not just aggressive vs. passive.

Originally Posted by cferdi

I find this interesting, but I'm also finding that these days about 80% of the table in tourneys are all playing aggressive; not saying they are all playing well, but there can be about 5-7 on a 9 ring table all trying to out-aggro each other, with few willing to lay down anything so this isn't working most of the time.

I admit I play micro stakes and FreeRolls, and maybe it changes at higher stakes (above $3) but I manage to make the money fairly frequently, even so. I'm sure this will be covered later, but I think many players these days read so much about aggressive play and think this means 'every hand' or 'every second hand' or 'never fold just get more aggressive', they are not choosing their moments and combining their aggression with all the other tools i.e strong starting hand, position, other players style, table personality, chip stack, etc.

Great article none the less, and good to know there is a 'neutral' and not just aggressive vs. passive.

It certainly can be a slippery slope when it comes to being aggressive as it is definitely true that some players are overly so— which is particularly apparent in free rolls sometimes! However, the mantra of being an aggressive player overall is still super important, as is not crossing that line into being a maniac (unless the situation calls for that too which is sometimes does of course)!

Hello everyone, first of all I want to thank you for creating this course, it will help me to clarify ideas and implement concepts that I did not know before, such as playing aggressive pre flop, none on the flop, passive turn and aggressive on the river. Thank you very much again and I will see the third video

Enjoying this course. Today I have a few freerolls to play and will use the aggression factor for more practice. And the great question " What doesnt he want me to do??" Although I have thrown those small feeler bets out and was waiting for someone to come over the top...lol. Would that be aggressive?

I have a question about a big stack play.
I understand that in the later stages and close to bubble big stack's pressure towards smaller stacks is wise and lucrative.

But what would you say Katie or Collin, how the big stack should control himself in the early stages, if the big stack has already tripled his size but everyone else still has over 100 BBs?

Originally Posted by belizebum

Enjoying this course. Today I have a few freerolls to play and will use the aggression factor for more practice. And the great question " What doesnt he want me to do??" Although I have thrown those small feeler bets out and was waiting for someone to come over the top...lol. Would that be aggressive?

Glad you liked that question!

Any bet is inherently an aggressive action, but sometimes creativity also comes into play. Making a fake "weak bet" that's small for an aggro player to bluff-raise can definitely work very well sometimes with the right read

Originally Posted by Nafor

I have a question about a big stack play.
I understand that in the later stages and close to bubble big stack's pressure towards smaller stacks is wise and lucrative.

But what would you say Katie or Collin, how the big stack should control himself in the early stages, if the big stack has already tripled his size but everyone else still has over 100 BBs?

You shouldn't adjust your play much if it's still far from the money. Simply play good deep-stacked poker whether you have 100bb and the chip leader has 300bb or it's the other way around. Having a big stack is the most important at the final table or any spot where there's a lot of risk aversion.

There are many benefits to being aggressive in poker, controlling the action, increasing profits, making the enemy run, and even being able to bluff.
The aggressive game must be cautious and well calculated so as not to lose.

Interesting, so far I was never thinking or aware of, that there are neutral actions. Somehow I always considered them to be passive actions. Thank you for the explanation and the video!

A great day two guys, Thankyou.

Having read the comments above I think it is important to remember that day two isn’t the only input on the course and there is a lot more to come, so making decisions based solely on what is learned in day two is an error of judgement. Day two is simply part of the whole course and must be taken in that context.

Looking forward to the rest of he course.

Thanks

BB

KJo Hand: From your reading I understood that you thought you were winning. I also understood that we are talking about aggression, I believe that a smaller bet would also be aggression. Let's ask the question, wouldn't it be interesting to bet less on the river to take a bigger pot or lose a smaller pot if the villain called?

This line of aggression can sometimes work on certain players. When the 10 hits on the river and you overbet, your KJ seems to be representing a stronger hand and then makes your opponent fold. It is important to remember that aggressiveness is different from irresponsibility.

All in preflop with AA hands KK QQ JJ 1010 are correct?
Aggression should apply to all types of play? Cash tables, tournaments, sit & go, it costs me a lot to be aggressive, when I do it they make me 3bet and I do all in and they always beat me with weak hands.
Maybe it's because I don't know how to fold strong hands.

interesting. but i kinda play different. i dont do much hands until bubble then if it happen to get still few blinds i play aggressive each good card. it depends of my opponents ofc but when im into big tourneys this kinda work the best for me. each hand aggressive i dont pay rises only if i have a strong hand and when i rise i defend my card until the end xD

funny thing some guys might learn our strategies from this kind of questions haha

Originally Posted by BentleyBoy

A great day two guys, Thankyou.

Having read the comments above I think it is important to remember that day two isn’t the only input on the course and there is a lot more to come, so making decisions based solely on what is learned in day two is an error of judgement. Day two is simply part of the whole course and must be taken in that context.

Looking forward to the rest of he course.

Thanks

BB

Thanks very much, and I appreciate the point you made in your post! Being aggressive generally is a very important aspect of being a winning poker player, however this does not mean we should be aggressive all the time. Thanks for putting that into context

Originally Posted by venycyos

KJo Hand: From your reading I understood that you thought you were winning. I also understood that we are talking about aggression, I believe that a smaller bet would also be aggression. Let's ask the question, wouldn't it be interesting to bet less on the river to take a bigger pot or lose a smaller pot if the villain called?

Yes, a smaller bet would still fall into the category of being an aggressive action. Betting smaller, perhaps in the form of making a blocking bet, does present the slight complication that it is more likely you're raised than when you make a more standard sized bet. Of course this won't always happen but it is certainly something important to keep in mind--particularly in spots where we are looking to get some value from our hand but ideally want to avoid being raised.

Originally Posted by jesusdemaria

Aggression should apply to all types of play? Cash tables, tournaments, sit & go, it costs me a lot to be aggressive, when I do it they make me 3bet and I do all in and they always beat me with weak hands.
Maybe it's because I don't know how to fold strong hands.

Yes, being an aggressive player is important to all types of poker. It can feel tough to get 3-bet a lot, but therein lies another opportunity to adjust to our opponents and outplay them

If you haven't already, I'd recommend checking out our course Ebook here: https://www.cardschat.com/become-a-w...-poker-player/ I feel that reading it may influence how you feel about aggression in general.

Originally Posted by Katie Dozier

Thanks very much, and I appreciate the point you made in your post! Being aggressive generally is a very important aspect of being a winning poker player, however this does not mean we should be aggressive all the time. Thanks for putting that into context



Yes, a smaller bet would still fall into the category of being an aggressive action. Betting smaller, perhaps in the form of making a blocking bet, does present the slight complication that it is more likely you're raised than when you make a more standard sized bet. Of course this won't always happen but it is certainly something important to keep in mind--particularly in spots where we are looking to get some value from our hand but ideally want to avoid being raised.

Thanks I understood the point of the biggest bet to avoid the villain's jokes.

Day 1 - Chapter 2

It is very important to distinguish when a player is passive, neutral or aggressive. Today in the freeroll, I had a very tough time playing against villain to the point where I started making bad decisions; I folded winning hands to aggression and stayed out of hands that I would have won if I got the chance to limp in.

Response to video question:

Pre-flop - aggressive (bet)
Post flop - neutral (check)
Turn - passive (call)
River - aggressive (raise)

So far this is great fun and informative.