Ranting about reads.

[kenewbie]

Having solid reads on your opponents will make you a lot more money than if you simply treat them all the same.
The point being, every decicion you make should be modified by how your opponents play.

Example:

You have KK, the flop is A97, you bet out and 3-bet when it came back, the turn was another 7, you bet and where raised.
Now, the river comes K without a possible flush, there are 2 opponents left. You are in the BB, UTG and the button (who raised you on the turn) are still in this hand.

How do you play this? The answer is that it depends on the style of UTG and button. If UTG is loose and are willing to cold-call, a checkraise will get the most money into the pot. If he is thighter and will fold to this, yet are willing to call a single bet, you will however make the same amount of money by check/calling, and loose one less bet when you are behind.

Will UTG call if you bet into him and thus allowing himself to be trapped by buttons raise? In that case you have another way of getting everyone in for 2 bets.

The point being, every decicion you make should be modified by how your opponents play.

Is the button an autobetter and you flop a vulerable top pair in a large pot as SB? Then you can check-raise and narrow the field.

Is BB an autoraiser in the same situation when he was agressive preflop? Then bet into him and have him narrow
it for you.

Are you heads up with someone who will call you down with any part of the flop? Maybe you shouldnt bet your overcards so hard.

Is the person heads up going to autobet if you cease the initiative and check to him? how does this affect your play when you have top pair? inducing bluffs are attractive here. how does it affect your play when you havent? That would depend on another aspect of his play, his willingness to call in heads up situations with nothing.

The list is eternal. The point being, every decicion you make should be modified by how your opponents play.

Exploiting the texture of the players still remaining in the hand at all times is one of the most important skills you can learn. Try to analyze how your opponents will react at all times, how this will affect the other players and how this again affects your winnings. If you do, you will make more money and your reads will improve, giving you yet more money.

One last example:

Your opponent has been in this ringgame for 2000 orbits now (long game phew), he has bet twice in that time, never raised. Repeatedly he has called people all the way showing a superiour hand. You flop a set and when the turn comes (showing a possible flush and a possible straight) he bets into you and 3-bets your raise. The river does not pair the board. You do not call his river bet.

k

[Joe Tall]

You have KK, the flop is A97, you bet out and 3-bet when it came back, the turn was another 7, you bet and where raised.

How did you make it to the turn? Why did you three bet? What was the preflop action? What type of table was it? How big was the pot? How many saw the flop?

You flop a set and when the turn comes (showing a possible flush and a possible straight) he bets into you and 3-bets your raise. The river does not pair the board. You do not call his river bet.

How big is the pot?

Peace,
Joe Tall

[kenewbie]

[ QUOTE ]
You flop a set and when the turn comes (showing a possible flush and a possible straight) he bets into you and 3-bets your raise. The river does not pair the board. You do not call his river bet.

How big is the pot?


[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly the point, barring any special circumstances where you can win a $2M pot by calling that $2 bet, the size of the pot does not matter. If you call this at 25-1 you are loosing money.

k

[RED_RAIN]

You ever get played because people can reverse this and play into you representing hands if you are so sure of your reads aiming only at the very large pots?

I guess I'm talking about semibluffs where they might continue on river cause they think you won't call.

[kenewbie]

[ QUOTE ]
You ever get played because people can reverse this and play into you representing hands if you are so sure of your reads aiming only at the very large pots?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about very passive players here, I think I have yet to see one 3-bet as a bluff. As for anyone else I will play according to what they are capable of doing in that position.

You CAN in theory trick me here, if you play very passivly all the time and make this move once we are heads up in a large pot, then you take it down. But consider how many value bets and raises you have to give up to maintain your cover and that plan crumbles pretty quickly.

k

[AsusFull]

Hey guys, this could very well be a extremely useful thread for beginners as a study of reads vs. Game Theory-type play, or something like that.

If this thread gets the right replies, this could be one of the most important threads for a newbie. I know understanding this topic would have accelerated my poker learning by hella lot when I started.

But being pretty fresh myself I dont think my thinking has matured to the point where I can give solid guidelines to approaching these situations. Could some of you old hands care to help out? It would be well appreciated.

Something about pot odds, Ed Miller, and game theory right /images/graemlins/wink.gif ?

[adanthar]

Okay, first of all, these examples are all horrible.

Why am I 3 betting KK on an A board? I'm betting when the 7 hits since...the turn counterfeited his 2 pair so I'm now slightly less behind on paper? Testing if he has a full house or not? Really feel like losing more money? On the river, I'm trying to lose less when I'm behind with the second best full house? When the straight hits and Ultrapassive bets into me, I'm raising him because...etc.

Gah.

Also, if you never fold a set at Party microlimits, you're playing correctly.

[ScottTheFish]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey guys, this could very well be a extremely useful thread for beginners as a study of reads vs. Game Theory-type play, or something like that.

If this thread gets the right replies, this could be one of the most important threads for a newbie.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense to kenewbie, but I suggest you forget about this thread. The concept is good, but the examples are iffy, and could cause more confusion than they cure.

Again no offense to the OP, I see where you're coming from.

[AsusFull]

That's what I meant. The OP shares the same feelings that I had coming into poker and starting out playing .50/1. When I posted a bunch of hands and people basically told me to play in a way that mostly wasn't based on reads, I was able to improve significantly. I was able to take my play from weak tight to, dare I say, almost tight aggressive. Obviously I'm no expert yet, but I know that this one lesson I learned from 2+2, to play optimaly without too much concern for reads, has probably helped me more than any other specific poker advice.

People posted good replies to the hand I played which was like this situation( Flopped Set turns into Tricky situation (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=818737&page=0&view=co llapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#818737)),and I was hoping they would do the same in this thread where the "defendant" kenewbie shows his thought processes.

If we could get this cleared up for new players and 2+2'ers their microlimit path may be less rocky than mine was.

[prayformojo]

[ QUOTE ]


That is exactly the point, barring any special circumstances where you can win a $2M pot by calling that $2 bet, the size of the pot does not matter.

k

[/ QUOTE ]

You are literally saying that you can be so absolutely confident of a read that your opponent will not act differently one in a MILLION hands? That's a MILLION hands in which the player reacts exactly the same way to the same circumstances.

When you find that table and feel that sure about it, please drop me a line. For now though, I suggest you take a look at Caro's law of loose wiring.

[kenewbie]

Uh no, the part you quoted is the part where I state the exact opposite. It is ofcourse a profitable bet at a million to one odds. But that does not happen in a real game.

k

[kenewbie]

You're right about the imaginary hand. It was just something i scribbled down without really giving it any thought. The point is the decicion you are facing on the river, where you try to extract the biggest amount of money possible based on how the other players are likely to react.

The fact that you save one bet when behind is not that important, it is that you win the equal amounts of chips there if you raise and if you just call, however if you raise you put more of your own money in.

So the opening of that hand was ill concived, I should have just skipped it alltogether, it is not important. What is important is to think about the river decicion, not just automaticly raise.

k

[prayformojo]

Ah, I misread the original sentence. I thought you meant that barring some other special circumstances, you should not call for the 2M pot.

Nonetheless, even at 25:1, I question the absolute value of the read. The decisions of most unthinking players, which passive players tend overwhelmingly to be, are guided at times by vague ideas, emotion, and whim. A passive player, who you are sure would never bet without a monster hand, will on occasion throw out a bet for no reason other than that he felt like it. I haven't met a passive player for whom such an occasion comes less often than one in 25 hands.

[kenewbie]

[ QUOTE ]
even at 25:1, I question the absolute value of the read. The decisions of most unthinking players, which passive players tend overwhelmingly to be, are guided at times by vague ideas, emotion, and whim.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is also an argument for folding. Passive players (consistantly passive ones) are timid, they are guided by their fear of loosing. It is against their character to risk too much. They prefer to keep the swings low.

Im sure some of them do an extra raise every now and then, but if it happens every 200 hands you are not getting odds in any realistic pot to call based on that.

I realize everyone likes the whole "dont fold in big pots" concept, Im just saying that not taking the opponent into account is just as bad as neglecting to look at the pot before your decicion.

k

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You flop a set and when the turn comes (showing a possible flush and a possible straight) he bets into you and 3-bets your raise. The river does not pair the board. You do not call his river bet.

How big is the pot?


[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly the point, barring any special circumstances where you can win a $2M pot by calling that $2 bet, the size of the pot does not matter. If you call this at 25-1 you are loosing money.

k

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is well-intentioned, but the size of the pot always matters. It greatly determines your play in hands like this.

Also, it's losing, not "loosing." Just a pet peeve, but I see it enough here that I think it's worth pointing out.

[kenewbie]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post is well-intentioned, but the size of the pot always matters. It greatly determines your play in hands like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, I should rephrase. There are times when reads allow you to make profitable moves that goes against what is the correct action by default.

Against this imaginary player I am hard pressed to envision a pot where it is correct to call though. I can make them up ofcourse but they dont exist in "real" limit poker.

While I agree on never neglecting the size of the pot, I dont like how these boards sometimes tend to ignore the opponent either. Your opponent is just as important.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, it's losing, not "loosing." Just a pet peeve, but I see it enough here that I think it's worth pointing out.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, I didnt know that. English is not my native language so any pointers on grammar are appreciated. Its easier to argue when you are coherrant /images/graemlins/smile.gif

(I skip the apostrophes out of pure lazyness though)

k

[prayformojo]

Sweet heaven, the floodgates are open on spelling correction now. It's coherent, not coherrant.

Oh, and since I'm seeing perennial internet favourite "definate" in the forums, please note: it's not spelled "definate". It is definitely spelled definite.

[bisonbison]

favourite

Go back to Canada, you U-favoring fop.

[AsusFull]

oh definately /images/graemlins/wink.gif j/k

[kenewbie]

[ QUOTE ]
Sweet heaven, the floodgates are open on spelling correction now. It's coherent, not coherrant.

Oh, and since I'm seeing perennial internet favourite "definate" in the forums, please note: it's not spelled "definate". It is definitely spelled definite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roger. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

k

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
...I should rephrase. There are times when reads allow you to make profitable moves that goes against what is the correct action by default.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Against this imaginary player I am hard pressed to envision a pot where it is correct to call though. I can make them up ofcourse but they dont exist in "real" limit poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not even sure what the example is, but whatever. As usual, it all depends.

[ QUOTE ]
While I agree on never neglecting the size of the pot, I dont like how these boards sometimes tend to ignore the opponent either. Your opponent is just as important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally, I'm basing my recommendations on the reads given. If there's no read given, I'm assuming (or at least, responding as if) the poster had no specific read at the time, which is a common situation I find myself in while multi-tabling.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, it's losing, not "loosing." Just a pet peeve, but I see it enough here that I think it's worth pointing out.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, I didnt know that. English is not my native language so any pointers on grammar are appreciated. Its easier to argue when you are coherrant /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Your English is much better than that of many/most native English speakers! Besides, I'm sure your English is much better than my <insert whatever your native language is.> /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Also, it's "coherent," not "coherrant." (Don't worry, though--English spelling makes no sense, even to us natives.)