The background to this discussion is two Cardrunners videos (Brian Townsend and Fabian), Sklanskys "NLHTAP" and my own stats/reflections.

I find that aggression is emphasized more by online pro's (like Brian and Fabian here) than by live pro's and 'teachers' (like Sklansky).

Basically when you watch the OP (online pros) play they will pretty much always raise when first in, and many will 3bet light both in and out of position. Sklansky on the other hand recommends a more cautious strategy. For example, in NLHTAP he says it is sometimes correct to open-limp on the button. I doubt you will find more than a handful, in any, of open-limps on the button in a 100k database of most OP's. Basically their different strategies can be simplified like this:

Online pros:

If I raise I will often pick up the blinds.
If I get called, I will have position and my opponent is unlikely to hit the flop, so I can take it down with a CB.
If I get called, I can either make or have a hand, or get another opportunity to bluff profitably/outplay him with position.
By raising and re-raising light I will get more action on my big hands.
You should raise or re-raise the same amount whether you have AA or 76s.

But basically, they're looking to pick up a lot of small pots when their opponents doesn't have anything.

Sklansky:
In No-Limit blinds are not as important as in Limit, since they represent a much smaller fraction of your expected won pots. Therefore, raising should not be done to steal pots but rather (mainly) for value. It's OK to deviate from this time to time to add deception, but most of your raises should be based on the value on your hand.
Your preflop play should be adjusted to suit the way your hand plays post flop in relation to stack sizes and hand character. With a drawing hand you want to get in cheap and make money post flop, with a big pair you want to make it expensive preflop to not let opponents draw profitably against you.


To use a specific hand as example...

[5s]

With a few limpers, OP will raise to either win the pot immediatly or set up for a profitable CB.

With no limpers OP will raise to take the blinds or set up for a profitable CB.

With a raise, OP will usually either fold or re-raise, depending on opponent. With a few overcallers there is also the option to call.

3-betting is done with a wide range of hands. Usually with big hands (like AK or JJ), speculative hands (like 65s) or junk. The only hands they don't like to 3-bet is hands that will have superior calling value (AQ or KJs?) against the range, basically they're too good to fold but not good OR bad enough to 3-bet.



With a few limpers, Sklansky will limp behind, hoping to hit a big hand or draw.

With no limpers Sklansky will either raise, since his hand expects to be ahead of random blind hands, or limp to encourage worse players to play.

With a raise infront Sklansky will almost invariably fold.

3-betting is mainly done for value with big hands, and sometimes with junk that there would be no value calling with.



So you could say that OP's pay a BIG price to get a BIG chance at winning a SMALL pot. Sklansky wants to pay a SMALL price to get a SMALL chance at winning a BIG pot. Obviously it is hard to say what strategy is correct without actually knowing the exact (or aproximate) values of "BIG" and "SMALL".

The OP preflop stats are something between 20-30 vpip, and 15-20 pfr. I'd estimate Sklanskys numbers to be slightly tighter but also a lot less aggressive. Maybe 25/8 or something (my own stats are more like 18/14).


Now if we discount "meta game value" and "table image" and assume we are playing in a vacuum, but with reads on our opponents. And we are not playing beyond level 2. That means, we are only concerned with OUR cards and our opponents cards, but may also consider what our hand looks like to our opponent (in a vacuum). What do we think is a good strategy? What sort of aggression will have the highest long time EV?


**disclaimer**
Obviously these concepts are more complicated than I have portrayed them here but in order to be able to have a reasonably readable debate and not get too far off topic I have decided to boil them down to more manageble "bullet points".


Ps. If you don't like Brian or think Sklansky is a clown, that's fine, but keep it to yourself. If you want to discuss this, pretend they are the opinions of someone you do like or respect.

Basically all of this can be boiled down to this:

David Sklansky is thinking about and discussing live NL, which is generally 9-10 handed, and quite often 300+ BB deep.

Brian Townsend is thinking about and discussing online NL, which is generally 6 handed, and almost always 100 BB deep.

So if you're playing FR online, and you're 300BBs deep along with several others at the table, you should consider moving to a Sklansky style? Hmmm.... Interesting thought.

But I think I still prefer the OP style playing FR and 300BBs deep. You are raising and 3-betting all kinds of stuff with position ... players trying to play back at you out of position have no clue what you have ... so you're likely to take down a lot of small pots AND have a big advantage when the other player hits a huge hand because you can fold your crap and also have a chance to make an even bigger hand with your 76s or whatever.

How often are you going to limp in OTB and still get a 300BB stack by the end of the hand? Well, I suppose [5s] is the type of hand that can do that, if you happen to get very lucky against [Js] or similar.

First of all the assumption of one of the strategies being for 300bb play and the other for 100bb is wrong. Most of the reasoning in this area from Sklansky is made with examples of stacks ranging from 70bb to 200bb, which is pretty much the same as the online situation (at a normal table the average stack would fall somewhere between those depths).

The assumption that one strategy deals with 6-max and the other with 8-9 players is correct, but I don't think the difference is that big. You can just use Sklanskys strategy from MP to blinds and cut out the EP part.

Even if it could be "boiled down" to those two assumptions, which I don't think it can, that's not the point. In fact, ignore whos strategies those are and work from the assumption that they are from person X and person Y and both talk about 6-max online play.

Now, using the X and Y strategy which is talking about 6-max online play as a backdrop for discussion, what is the role of aggression in online shorthanded games? What are the drawbacks and strengths in the asserted context (vacuum, level 2 thinking, no meta-game or table image)?

Stony, if I understand your question correctly, you're asking whether there might be something to be said for playing the Sklansky way at say 125BBs deep in a 6-max game online.

Even in the stipulated context, I still prefer raising preflop to limping. Mostly because I don't think your trade-off works. That is, the preflop limper may think he's grabbing a small chance to win a big pot instead of a big chance to win a small pot ---> but I'm not sure that is true. He may be grabbing a small chance to win a small pot instead of a big chance to win a small pot plus a small chance to win a big pot.

Give me 76s or 97o OTB ... I think my chances of winning a big pot AND of winning a small pot are greater if I raise it preflop. I think this is true especially in the stipulated context (in a vacuum etc.): in a vacuum, most opponents (not most good opponents perhaps, but most opponents in the overall world of poker), after they limp preflop out of position, will give you credit for a big pair or AK/AQ preflop the first time you raise preflop, especially full-ring ... so they'll likely play set-or-forget with their small to medium pairs against you, which pretty much maximizes your winnings (you get to take down 8/9 pots on flop, the other 1/9 if they slowplay you which many opponents do, you get to see all 7 cards with the chance to stack them if you catch a straight.)