puki handovi (Strana 9 od 16)

igra 36/2  3b2 AF 2
naravno river  necu foldat  nikad  samo me  zanima jesam mogao foldat  prije
radio je  svakakve  gluposti callao do 31$ sa AJ off na  moj 3b i shove nekog  treceg  igraca..

____________________                  

Holdem Manager, No-Limit Hold'em Ring
Small Blind: $0.50
Big Blind: $1

BB ($131.6)
UTG (puki986) ($177.3)
CO ($121.05)
BTN ($97.7)
SB ($111.85)

Dealt to UTG (puki986)

Preflop: (Pot is: $1.5)

UTG (puki986) raises to $3, CO calls $3, BTN & SB fold, BB calls $2

Flop: (Pot is $9.5, 3 players)

BB checks, UTG (puki986) bets $6, CO raises to $12, BB folds, UTG (puki986) calls $6

Turn: (Pot is $33.5, 2 players)

   
UTG (puki986) checks, CO bets $18, UTG (puki986) calls $18

River: (Pot is $69.5, 2 players)

   
UTG (puki986) checks, CO bets $20, UTG (puki986) calls $20

                                                                     
Total Pot: $109.5 | Rake: $3

1.
kad ti pasivan postane agresivan moraš znati da ima. Pasivci skoro nikad ne rejzaju FD (ako ga i rejzaju onda ga ne minrejzaju).
Ako nemaš read da on tu misli da je 9-ka monster, onda foldaj ovo. Ako ne na flopu, obavezno na turnu.

2.
standard shove. Plača te JJ+ i sl.

Ne kužim kaj pričaš...

Neznam točno kak se AF računa, ali znam da može biti varljiv. Zato ga ja koristim zajedno s agression frequency.

Kolko sam ga ja skužio, ako recimo netko beta pola pota svaki street, a drugi overbeta pot jedan street, oni imaju isti AF. Jer se računa i veličina beta/raisea.

Pošto nemaš read na njemu, moraš ga svrstati pod pasivca, jer svi koji imaju slične statse preflop su večinom pasivni.

Ako imaš dovoljno ruku na njemu, i ako mu je agresion frequency veči od 40% na svakom streetu, onda je dobro ovako kako si odigrao.

tako je, al pretpostavka  je  da  ce onaj koji igra  19 % handova  imat puno bolje  karte kad  ulazi u hand nego onaj koji igra 36% pa  ce zato i vise  betat, rejzat  nego callat  a samim time  onda manje  blefirat  ako jedan i drugi imaju AF 2 ,
jer  ako ovaj koji ima 36% ima  jednak AF kao ovaj prvi onda  znaci da  on dosta  blefa jer  mu nemoze  bit  jednak omjer  bet+rejza/call ko ovome  sto ulazi sa puno boljim handovima,kaj ne ?
nisam ja  to nigdje cuo/procitao nego mi to nekak logicno,nemora  bit  da  je  tocno...
ako neko zna  ,nek se javi..

   
Aggression Factor

Agression Factor, or AF, is a ratio (not a percentage) which describes the nature of a player's bets.

The formula for any given street is ( (bets + raises) / calls ) .

Bets, raises, and calls are all "money bets." Bets and raises, however, are aggressive (increasing the cost of playing) and calls are passive. Checks and folds are not in the equation because they are not bets.

An AF of 1.0 implies that the person makes bets about as often as they call bets.

Generally speaking, an AF dropping below .75 is to getting passive; many poor players online have AF's of .7 or lower. An AF over 1.5 or so is generally getting aggressive.
What does it mean to me?

Someone with a very low AF who bets or raises is very likely to have the strength they represent. You must respect their bet when deciding how to play your hand.

Someone with a very high AF is liable to be bluffing or semi-bluffing much of the time. You might call or raise back more liberally.
More to it than that

There's an important subtlelty to understand regarding AF vis-a-vis someone's looseness. A rock who only sees the flop 15% of the time and folds the flop 50% of the time may produce an AF of 3.0 by merely betting legitimate hands. Because they are so tight, they nearly always have a pair or high cards when they come in. Consequently, the 3.0 AF doesn't actually suggest excessive agression. The mere fact that they're on one of the few hands they didn't fold tells you they are holding strong cards; StraighforwardPlay will lead to a lot of bets and raises.

On the other hand, someone who sees the flop 75% of the time who has a 1.5 AF is ridiculously aggressive. Someone seeing almost every flop can't possibly be catching their cards that often, so a high AF tells you they must be bluffing and semi-bluffing, probably too often.

Someone's AF for a given street does not tell you how likely they are to bet. However, if they do put money up, it describes the kind of money. Bets made by a passive player are very likely to be legitimate. Bets made by a very aggressive player may also be bluffs, semi-bluffs, or marginal value bets.

Consider someone who bets 25% of the time, raises 15 % of the time, and calls 10% (the rest of the time they check or fold.) Their AF is 4.0. ((25+15)/10)

Compare to someone who bets 35% of the time, raises 20% of the time, and calls 30% of the time. Their AF is 1.833. ((35+20)/30)

The second person is a lot more likely to bet or raise -- they do it 55% of the time, far more than the first player's 40% of the time -- yet their AF is lower, because they call so much more loosely -- three time as often!

Generally speaking, you should adjust your perception of their AF based on how often they fold up to that point. If they fold a lot, that high AF doesn't mean they are they are all that aggressive, and if they rarely fold, a low AF may not mean every bet is legitimate.

Zadnji popravljao dfable (30-11-2010 01:20:44)

I mislim da se računa veličina beta/rejza. Jer znam da sam vidio neke likove s AF=5 koji su imali manji agresion frequency po streetovima od recimo likova s AF=2.5. I onda sam pokušao shvatiti zašto i jedino logično objašnjenje je bilo da ovaj beta više (i stvarno je betao).

Probajte gledati više taj agresion frequency po streetovima (kliknete na AF i otvori vam se popup u HEMu).

Hint:
ako je na riveru  oko 20%  onda nikad ne blefa (na riveru)
Ako je oko 30% onda blefa svaki busted FD (generalno, voli blefati na riveru)
Ako mu je oko 25% onda pametno blefa river..

Očito sam i ja progriješio što se tiče razmišljanja o AF-u. Ali u kombinaciji s AFQ dobro radi...

Kužim šta želiš reći....

Ali pročitaj dfable-ovo boldano..Ako taj igrač s 36/2 statsima  dosta check folda (a to i radi) ne mora mu se zato smanjivati AF.

Zamisli igrača koji nikad ne calla. Već folda sve osim TP-a, a TP beta ili rejza. Taj će uvijek imati beskonačan AF. I ti ćeš misliti da blefa cjelo vrijeme. Ili još gore, zamisli da folda sve osim 2 para +.

River ima definitivno preveliki fq. River insta callam.
Ah, neznam. Mislim da bi ga čak scallao sve. Pošto nisu veliki betovi.

U ovome je bit, ali pitanje je kako to primijeniti u igri? Tj. da li je moguće ikakav pametan zaključak donijeti iz AF-a, tipa ovo šta ti kažeš roba iz AFQ-a:

p.s. sry puki šta spamam temu sa tekstovima.

Pročitajte zadnji post, mislim da je dosta dobro objasnio kako interpretirati AF (meni je malo jasnije)

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/po … or-695671/

igra 24 /20
tak mi jebeno ide  da  sam bio jako blizu foldanja, da  nije  bio FD i str8 draw  na  flopu mozda  bi cak i foldao al nisam mogao vjerovat da cekira set  na  ovakvom flopu i naravno nakraju sam sebe nagovorio na  AI..
cooler il sam mogao foldat?

____________________                  

Holdem Manager, No-Limit Hold'em Ring
Small Blind: $0.50
Big Blind: $1

BTN ($112.45)
SB (puki986) ($99.95)
BB ($67.8)
UTG ($104.75)
CO ($61.45)

Dealt to SB (puki986)

Preflop: (Pot is: $1.5)

UTG raises to $3, CO calls $3, BTN calls $3, SB (puki986) calls $2.5, BB folds

Flop: (Pot is $13, 4 players)

SB (puki986) checks, UTG checks, CO checks, BTN checks

Turn: (Pot is $13, 4 players)

   
SB (puki986) bets $12, UTG raises to $35, CO & BTN fold, SB (puki986) raises to $96.95 (All-In), UTG calls $61.95

River: (Pot is $206.9, 2 players, 1 all-in)

Showdown:
SB (puki986) shows

(Full House, Twos over Sevens)

UTG shows

(Full House, Kings over Sevens)

                                                                     
Total Pot: $206.9 | Rake: $3

Winners:
UTG wins $203.9

Zadnji popravljao puki86 (30-11-2010 20:49:37)