Some years ago, a player that I respect made a curious statement. He said, "If I am going to lose, I'd rather lose betting than just calling!" He never fully explained this attitude; yet, over and over I noticed how well he did with this aggressive approach. So, I began to pay attention to the difference in players who were more apt to bet and those who were content with just calling.

First of all, it's safe to say that betting is the more aggressive of the two. Calling is the more passive activity. Some players are aggressive all the time and others are passive as a life style. More experienced players will agree that there are times to be aggressive and to be passive. So, the question remains, "Would you rather bet (be aggressive) or call (be passive)?

For serious players, the answer lies in position and who your opponents are.

Betting has an edge-just as being in the driver's seat will have the same advantage. Betting will give a player two ways to win, while calling gives a player only one way to win. For instance, by betting a player with a marginal hand may fold. The only way to win by just calling is to have the best hand at show down. Still, passively calling may be a strategy when you have the best hand. If your opponent is aggressive and you can count on him or her to do your betting, then checking and calling is a good move. Still, taking the initiative has its place. For example, suppose you raised pre-flop with a pair of nines. That initiative may get players to fold or call. In either case you are the bettor. However, if a player raises your bet, you are now the caller unless you re-raise. I did some research on this and discovered that the last bettor is usually the one who pulls in the pot. However, this is not fool-proof. Often, the caller, who is letting an aggressive player do the betting is a bettor disguised as a caller. So, often it's the last to call that gathers the pot.

Betters who play as if they are just callers are using being passive as a bluff. Although checking and just calling with the best hand is misleading, it's poker. Just as check/raising is a way to trap weaker hands; so too, raising the bet in late position with the second best hand is also playing poker.

Generally, players who would rather bet than call are taking initiative. They are establishing that they are in the driver's seat. There's a difference whether this is done by an ordinarily conservative player or by a known loose player. When a loose player is taking the initiative by betting or raising the bet, it's more likely a bluff or semi-bluff. However, when a conservative player is betting or raising the bet, it sure that he has the best or the worst hand. Usually, however, a bet from a tight player means they have what they are representing. On the other hand, a bet from a loose player is more like a call or just another way to get more money in the pot.

At the same time, suppose you have a reputation of being a loose player. That can make your bets more "callable." I know some players who use their reputations for being loose to their advantage. They will not slow play when they have good hands. Why? Because they know that no one will believe them and will call. It's like leading sheep to the slaughter.

So, my friend who would rather lose betting than by calling could be loose or tight. If loose, his bets got more calls. If tight, his bets would get more folds. Go figure!