Think about the table scenario from Will Fry’s point of view(this is based on what he told me). He sat down at the table knowing that most players would adapt by shying away from him, but one or two braver souls would see an opportunity to stand up to him. Not only does he know this, but he can have a pretty good guess which players this is likely to be.

Will told me he thought about is as simply as that Tom was young and talked a good game, and so he very correctly made the guess that Tom would be the first to 3-bet him. When this happened, Will had the balls to back his judgement with a 4-bet to about 7k, now getting deep into the stacks. Unless Tom had a super-strong hand, there really is very little he can do here. Tom will have suspected that Will could be still messing around, but knew there was a chance he had a hand, and correctly decided not to risk it all.

Will’s play relies on the reservations that are at play even in the best tournament poker. Tom was reserved here when faced with the 4-bet, but he was right to be. He could not be sure what Will had, and a player wth good judgement knows that there is no point playing a silly pot against a player like Fry when there are going to be much easier spots at the table. (Tom had junk himself here, but I think his decision would be even tougher if he had a hand even as strong as AQ or 99)

Fry’s success relies on two implications of his aggression. Firstly, if you go to the next street against him, your decision will only become tougher. Secondly, he knows that a balanced player will see the sense in avoiding him. After all, why throw stones at the big bully when there are plenty of midgets to throw rocks at?

I agree that Will’s play is continually walking the tightrope of danger, but for him elimination is not the greatest fear. Instead, his greatest fear is to think that he might have missed opportunities to win extra chips that the standard player would not. This can only be a winning mentality.

One of the great dangers of this kind of play is that every player comes to the point where they have had enough. A good player will respond by out-agressing the bully, and a bad one by just calling him down, but both are potentially of equal damage to the bully. One of the great skills that the bully has to put in place is reading the psychology of the game well enough to anticipate this point. It requires great people reading and concentration of the game. However, for a skilled player, this can only be good news. This kind of wild play forces everyone at the table to draw on skills they might not have anticipated, and if the bully can be sharper at using these skills, it can only be right for him to open the game up like this.

play fire with fire – its all for fun !

Yeah,really interesing stuff. Maybe let’s keep this thread to keep our experiences on this style of play, and log our thoughts on it.

I think your point about his 2.25x raises hits the nail on the head. One of the great advantages of aggression against thinking players is that they are aware of the implied threat of having to call into an inflating pot on later streets, and often prefer to give up on early on. It is interesting that a raise this small could get through- the numbers for that raise working with antes in play would be pretty sweet.

I think the way aggression play really falls into place is that people will react in different ways, but it will become very obivous which way they are going to react. I have always thought the perfect table dynamic is to have some players playing too tight and some too loose, including ideally one or two stations! Only sometimes will the perfect game slip into place of being able to bully the thinking players, whilst losing the respect of the stations, who are clueless enough to not realise that of course you will not be pulling any bluffs on them. Basically,any variation of styles can only be of benfit to a good player, and this super aggression will only widen that gap.

This kind of agression adds dimensions to the game that you would not normally see. Aggression is a style that of course makes things more dangerous and sharpens the knife edge of elimination, but if a player is skillful enough, then the need for greater reading of hands and of the psychology in play can only be of benefit.

There are of course disadvantages. Variance is the enemy of a player that is able to beat a game, and this kind of play can of course send variance spiralling. Maybe it is these kind of disadvantages that we can try to log here, as it can only be these that stop it from being a great way to play.

Numpty, Bobby suggested a little banter game at Walsall on the 28th. There is a £50 15,000 chip event apparently. Maybe head there after seeing Wednesday continue their stroll towards the playoffs?

I recently played in the DTD anniversary cup, though didn’t manage to make it to the end of day 1 (pretty poor considering this is only 5 levels!)

But, after 4-5 hours, with a nice stack, Will Fry moved to my table. He is the young player who recently won EPT budapest, though by his own admission did this by playing mainly a solid game, with a few moves – the standard tight-aggressive game. Now, with no monetary pressure on him, with such a big cash under his belt, he is taking steps to improve his game by experimenting with playing the super-aggro game. The effects were unbelievable. He was just inpossible to play against, raising the majority of pots, and frequently 4-betting when someone played back at him (and showing rags).

The sickest advantage of his play, though, seemed to be the effect on other players. Where you would expect others to stand up to him (as i tried a couple of times, failing miserably), the majority of players just tried to avoid him. Therefore, not only was his BB not being nicked, his tiny 2.25xBB raises were getting through in the vast majority of pots, whereas everyone elses raises were being mercilessly re-raised on a fairly agressive table.

One to try!