Playing 'Aggressive Poker'

What does it mean?

I recently had an e-mail correspondent ask me, "I want to play aggressive poker, but what does aggressive poker mean?" I think this is a question of sufficient importance and interest to discuss here.

Abstract terms often mean one thing to some people and something different to others. Poker writers used to exhort people to play aggressively, but that often got translated into playing every other hand and backing each one to the hilt. I used to tell my students that the 10 most aggressive players in the world were dealing poker now, because they had gone broke. I also said that in some columns. After a while, many poker writers started to prefer using the more sedate term "selectively aggressive," instead. Changing the terminology is helpful, but it still leaves unanswered the basic question of defining aggressiveness. I will use the term aggressive in this column to mean being selectively aggressive, since betting or raising whenever it is your turn is not a winning poker style.

How aggressive you need to be is determined by a number of factors besides who your opponents are and how they are playing. The most important of these factors are the form of betting being used, the size of your stack, the structure of the game, and whether you are playing in a tournament or a cash game. Let's examine each of these things.

An important part of being aggressive is being willing to bluff. Poker writers often point to the fact that you can bet much more in relation to the pot when playing no-limit than limit poker - which, of course, is true. Then they say that many more bluffs are successful in no-limit than in limit play - which again is true. However, some of them then conclude that you should bluff much more often in no-limit than in limit play, a statement with which I would like to take issue.

Take a look at the pot odds in each betting form. In no-limit, the typical bet is between half the pot size and the full size of the pot. In limit play, most of the time you are risking a much smaller amount to win a much larger amount. Obviously, this means that you win fewer pots on bluffs in limit poker, but also have risked a lot less money on your bluffing. Perhaps bluffing is of more importance in no-limit, but surely the difference is not as great as most people believe, or as many poker writers claim. I know a lot of good limit poker players, and they all do a fair amount of bluffing. The attractive pot odds demand it.

Stack size is seldom relevant in limit poker, but its of tremendous importance in no-limit play. If you are in a money game and play the way that I advocate, you will seldom have a short stack, because you should buy more chips whenever you get low. The only time that you will have a short stack is when you are waiting for the button after losing a big pot, since I see little sense in going out of your way to rush to buy chips when out of position.

If you are a regular tournament player, you know how important short-stack play is in that arena. You have to be aggressive in order to avoid having your chips depleted without ever taking a stand. Waiting may mean that even if you catch a good hand and win a pot with it, you have dribbled away too much in overhead to gain any significant ground. Furthermore, when you have a short stack, deciding when to go all in is as much situational as what your hand is. If no one has opened and several players have folded, it is hard to find a hand that's unworthy of letting loose with an all-in blast.

Tournaments are often played with an ante, especially in the later stages. I make a major change in my game when antes come into play. If I open a pot that contains antes, it will almost always be with a raise. The extra money in the pot warrants the extra effort to try to win it. I have heard the argument from some good players that it is OK to just call with a mediocre hand because of the excellent pot odds, but my experience is that if I don't raise, my opponents will play me for being weak and will raise me out of the pot. I am sure there are some tournament tables at which the players are so passive that open-calling is a viable strategy, but I never seem to get assigned to one of them.

Tournaments are not that different from cash games if it is early in the tournament and you got a substantial amount in chips relative to the blinds at the start. For example, if you got 10,000 in chips at the start with 25-50 blinds, you have 200 times the big blind in chips, and in the second round with 50-100 blinds, you have 100 times the big blind in chips. This is how many big poker events begin. I play pretty much the same when starting out in this size tournament as I do in a money game. I am cautious when out of position because the money is deep, and I do not want to jeopardize a big part of my stack without an appropriate hand until I have had a sufficient amount of time to size up my opponents. Some good players operate with a different philosophy. They aim to obtain a good amount of chips early on, which means running some risks. Their idea is to prepare for the blinds going up later, and to win chips from the weaker players before they fall into fingers that will be more difficult to pry open.

As the tournament progresses, you have to be more aggressive, regardless of how you were playing earlier in the event. Once the antes kick in, nearly every pot is going to be raised. Staying out of action unless you have a premium hand is going to dribble away too many chips. Playing with an ante eats up chips at a high rate. Being aggressive by calling is inferior to being aggressive by raising. The pot size is fairly substantial even if everyone folds. You have "fold equity" when you are the bettor or raiser. To translate "aggressive poker" into concrete action, use a betting method that makes good use of fold equity when reaching out for pots.

If I were asked what "aggressive poker" means, I certainly would not define it as playing a lot of hands. I would define it as being willing to bluff when the time is right, and as making use of fold equity. It is not so much how many hands you play as it is how you play them that makes for winning poker.