Poker Articles

 
Sign in | Join
in
PlayersOnly
Easy credit card deposits
and soft games!
Sign Up Now!
Rakeback
Get cash back after
playing poker!
Sign up now!
PokerStars 
100% Deposit Bonus!
Largest Poker Site!
FullTilt Poker
Non-stop tournament
action all day long!
Sign Up Now!


Poker Articles

    • Google
    • Yahoo!
    • Bloglines
    • NewsGator
    • MSN
    • AOL
    • Technorati
    • RSS

Is Aggression Really the Answer?

By JACK WELCH | Published Sep 02 2008, 01:54 PM

Is aggression over-rated in live tournament play?  I am just asking.  I hardly ever even play live myself.  Sometimes I think I am just not a people person.

I have, however, watched hundreds and hundreds of highly edited live hands on television.  I have studied thousands and thousands of hands. I have more poker books than Barnes & Noble. I have sat in worship at the feet of the Doyle Brunsons of the world who have preached aggression, aggression, aggression for decades now. 

I understand aggressive play is the key to success in cash games and on the Internet.  However, the WSOP Main Event results have caused me to question the orthodoxy.  In fact, I am here to suggest the key to success in the ME is a lack of aggression, a lack so great as to be described as squeaky tight play.
 
It should be noted, my theory does not explain the success of Jamie Gold and Jerry Yang in recent years.  Of course, nobody else's theories have, either. Just how do you make your way through a deep-stacked field of 6,844?  The Main Event is more a maze than a tournament.  Whereas many players approach the event as a testosterone-filled cage match for egos, the survivors seem to excel at avoiding conflict, not inviting it. 


Maybe they were just tired.

Have you been listening to these people, the November Nine?  I have.


The oldest player is the chip leader.  You don't get to be a half century old in this world without knowing a little something about survival.  Dennis Phillips, age 53, plays what has been described as a conservative and straightforward game.  An amateur - he's not quitting his job.

Next in line chip-wise is Ivan Demidov, making his first appearance in the World Series.  Twice the Russian was down to 6,000 chips the first day, but the final table bubble was, well, uncomfortable.  "I didn't really play my best game," Demidov explained.  "Sometimes I played too scared, too tight...  I couldn't afford to gamble a lot."

Ylon Schwartz is a champion chess player, clearly a strategic thinker.  "I decided to take it easy and play it cool," he said.  "Day one.  Everybody was overbetting insane amounts of money.  It was great to just sit and wait to have my opponents dominated.  If you just stick around and wait, someone will eventually make a mistake...."  In the beginning, Schwartz waited.  In the middle, he played small ball.  Towards the end he got tight, as the MTT turned into more of a super satellite.

Darus Suharto is an accountant, a profession which suggests to me a cautious personality.  He is a TAG stylist.  "I didn't expect to last this long," he admits.  He's not quitting his job either.

Craig Marquis took it one day at a time.  "I went into every day with the goal simply of making it to the next day."

Kelly Kim, the short stack at the Final Table come November, had this to say..."The journey is so long.  You play every day, you survive, and you wait for the next day."

Success is survival.  Folding is still the best play in poker.


Ideally, you want to play against opponents who are weaker than you.  In the World Series of Poker Main Event, there are hundreds of the greatest players from around the world.  This is, after all, the nature of the event.  Are those the type of players you want to challenge?  I suggest the answer is a resounding "NO."  So, to be successful, to survive, the key is to avoid better players, especially those who have position on you.

Apparently, avoiding good players should not be a problem in the early going.  This is the flip side of the WSOP ME.   "They were just dumping chips," exclaimed Kim.  "I really believe this tournament has the biggest overlay of any poker tournament."

Look at the owner of the most WSOP bracelets.  Please, he wants you to.  Hellmuth - who placed 45th in the 2008 ME - plays a game of survival.  A trapping small ball style.  A cautious style which seeks to avoid risk at all costs.

Hellmuth prides himself on his reading ability.  The ability to read your opponents is as important in the hands you don't play as the hands you do.

It's one thing to be aggressive, it's another thing to get your money in bad.  Of course, if you do get your money in bad, you have to survive.  "It wasn't an easy, smooth ride for me at all," admitted Scott Montgomery, third in chips among the November Nine. "I had to get it in bad a few times along the way." 

We all know you get aggressive on the bubble. Right?  Right?  Montgomery hated to do it, but he admits he folded perhaps 20 hands to the cash.

Peter Eastgate, a cash game expert, believes good cash game players should have no problem making the adjustments necessary to be successful in tournament play.  "Cash games are far more complex," Eastgate told a reporter recently, "and the decisions you face in a tournament are much easier."  Part of the explanation, I believe, is simply that aggression is less inherently necessary in successfully navigating your way to the final table of the World Series of Poker Main Event.

Your opponents expect you to be aggressive.  In fact, they are counting on it.  Aggression becomes the irresistible force which continually crashes into the immovable object, which is just more aggression waiting for its own turn.

Which brings us to David Rheem.  Originally tutored by the Mizrachi brothers,  "Chino" plays a relentlessly aggressive game.  He is in 7th place, he is short-stacked, and he is arguably the most aggressive player who made the final table.  He can get out of line.  But if "Chino" can read his opponents well enough to fold at the right times, I am picking him to take down the $9,119,338 first place prize and WSOP bracelet.


Survival is success. 

Aggression is winning it all.

And November is a freeroll.


Comments
 

sirswish6 said:

fold to win?

September 2, 2008 3:49 PM
 

amak316 said:

lol who doesnt know that the majority of people at a final table will be nits.

News flash! Nitty players survive longer than people playing to win!! that being said tournament poker is not about getting 5th-9th place, invariably people who are capable of playing loose and exploiting bubbles are going to end up with the most money in the long run, just because a couple of chipleaders in one MTT describe themselves as tight (which doesnt mean thats necessarilly true btw) doesnt mean that TAG is optimal at each stage of a tournament..

September 2, 2008 4:04 PM
 

Vesper said:

Interesting, but I don't really get this article at all.

September 2, 2008 4:06 PM
 

openartery said:

Thanks Jack.  I am by no means an expert but more of what I am reading on some of the boards lately suggest some tighter play may be the way to go in the current era of hyper-aggression.  We will have a chance to see them play soon and see what works.

September 2, 2008 4:25 PM
 

TMLMS13 said:

Fold to cash, skeet to win.

September 2, 2008 6:01 PM
 

thelandlord said:

tight is right fold to cash. oh and great sample size

September 2, 2008 6:05 PM
 

SCTrojans said:

I think you've confused aggressive with loose, two very different concepts.

Each of these players have made comments about their tight style of play, and have made no reference to their level of aggression.

Aggression more refers to the tendency to raise or call, not be tight or loose. You can be an extremely tight player with an extremely low vpip yet still be incredibly aggressive. You can also be an extremely loose player, playing every single pot, yet be extremely extremely passive.

Aggression for life.

September 2, 2008 7:11 PM
 

davester said:

SCtrojans is correct.  you confused playing tight with being agressive and applying pressure.

good article not.

September 2, 2008 7:33 PM
 

ImoOnTilt said:

Interesting article.  It is true that many online players that transfer to live are too LAG and get involved in way too many pots early.  However, tournaments are won and lost by the ability to play to the blind structure.  If you are sitting with a comfortable stack or M, it could be relatively safe to say playing TAG is more profitable.  Yet, when increasing blinds are nipping at your heels you must to loosen up to survive (LAG).  Being a successful tournament player is about changing gears at the right time and knowing how to play with a variety of stack sizes.  Passiveness is weakness IMO.  This is because it is much easier to read opponents when putting the pressure on them. In conclusion, to say these players are all tight and straight-forward could be a little misleading since I'm positive they had to change their style of play throughout the tournament.

September 2, 2008 9:23 PM
 

SuicideSquad said:

In addition to all the comments above, I just don't think one can generalize about the way someone would play based on their professions or their age...Dennis Phillips might be 53, but do we really think Gus Hansen would start playing boring poker once he hits 50? Doubt it.

Nor can one place much reliance on players describing their own style given that there is an enormous monetary incentive to decieve the public and other participants with respect to their playing style at the moment.

September 2, 2008 11:59 PM
 

Circpsycho said:

The above poster says something that catches my attention.  "Boring poker"  Professional players do not play to entertain the crowd, nor do they play wild loose or wild aggressive to entertain themselves.  

Players that play with severe aggression are playing to accumulate massive chipstacks and win a tourney.  To say that aggression is or isnt the key to winning tourneys is a false statement either way.  The level of success a player has has less to do with their style and more to do with their skills at the learned attributes of the game.  Reading, bet sizing and observation.  If you combine these with either aggressive or tight, you have a winner.

September 3, 2008 6:54 AM
 

JACK WELCH said:

The title is a question because the theory is meant to be rhetorical. Good thinking!

September 3, 2008 7:25 AM
 

ka$ino said:

You mention that the Main Event has the best players in the world, but you fail to mention that it also includes the worst players in the world.... which is why there is so much value playing it.  The goal should be playing as many pots as you can against the bad players, and if that means playing ultra aggressive because you have a great table, thats what you should do.  

September 3, 2008 11:39 AM
 

ka$ino said:

"They were just dumping chips," exclaimed Kim.  "I really believe this tournament has the biggest overlay of any poker tournament."

I did not see this the first time I read this... but its definitely the must truthful statement of this article

September 3, 2008 11:43 AM
 

TopTrotter said:

Everything is ALWAYS relative.  It doesn't matter whether it's football or basketball or poker .... it's not what you do, it's what you do RELATIVE to what others are doing that creates leverage.   In football, if your opponents are all on the line rushing the quarterback, you want plays that allow them to rush in and which exploit this (like a draw play).  In basketball, if your opponents are all playing zone defense, you want plays to exploit that.

Same in poker.  When Brunson first came out with SuperSystem, it was unique.  People weren't doing it.   It represented the element of difference which enhanced the leverage that was gained by ultra aggression vs. players who were mainly tight.

Now, in an era where it seems like everyone wants to play every hand and play it aggressively, perhaps there is more leverage now in being somewhat tighter - not because it's right or wrong, but because it's DIFFERENT then the masses.

Very similar to Tommy Angelo's "reciprocality".

September 13, 2008 12:40 PM
 

playinem121 said:

Thought provoking for sure. Perhaps our goal should be trying to continuously run counter to the prevailing style at our table.

September 16, 2008 3:33 PM

About JACK WELCH

Retired after a decades-long writing career. Erstwhile Director of Public Relations for NIKE. Co-founder of Running magazine. Prize-winning poet. Senior Editor, Track & Field News. Ran many marathons. Undefeated racer of elephants (3-0 lifetime.) Czechoslovakian Linguist USAF/NSA. Married. 2 step-children, 3 grandsons.


P5's Member Blogs
War, Poker, and Life...
By The Maven - added Nov 28 2008, 04:08 PM
live Tournament
By younggun_AK - added Nov 27 2008, 11:39 PM
A good score
By lukaluka05 - added Nov 30 2008, 05:53 AM
 
This week's podcast features interviews with ESPN's World Series of Poker co-host Norman Chad and Top 10 Online Player Steve 'gboro780' Gross.

P5s Podcast, Nov 20, 2008
Thur, 20 Nov 2008 12:00:00 EST
This week's podcast focuses on new UIGEA regulations that are scheduled to be enacted in January 2009.  John Pappas of the PPA and Jeff Sandman of the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative join us.

P5s Podcast, Nov 13, 2008
Thur, 13 Nov 2008 12:00:00 EST
 
Little Wins!
2008-11-12 04:36:16
Both Jonathan's Double, Not Much Changes
2008-11-12 03:42:55
PocketFives.com Rankings
Rank PLB PRO
1. AJKHoosier1 1 1
2. moorman1 5 2
3. gboro780 4 4
4. djk123 6 3
5. shaundeeb 7 5
6. TheRealPokerccini 8 8
7. eisenhower1 9 9
8. breeth 2 19
9. Stamdogg 10 16
10. P0KERPR033 21 6
P5s Sortable Rankings
Rank PLB
 1. ryanbluf 6078.52
 2. Mr_BigQueso 3598.81
 3. Hazmat2001 1967.66
 4. MAFinest22 1809.36
 5. cactusjak9 1345.03
 6. Fajzher 1286.40
 7. hustler2727 1099.61
 8. Raf1318 887.42
 9. spudd69 743.03
 10. dirtdogjd 553.58
Go