A8

[Scotch78]

No reads. Primarily concerned with my river play, but critique the rest, too.

PokerStars 3/6 Hold'em (5 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
UTG folds, MP folds, Button folds, SB completes, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB calls.

Flop: (4 SB) 3/images/graemlins/club.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, T/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, SB calls.

Turn: (3 BB) 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, Hero checks.

River: (3 BB) A/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="CC3333">SB 3-bets</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 9 BB

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
No reads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Difficult to judge without.

Sometimes call (your kicker is not great, could be a weak 2-pair hand as he calls the flop and missed his CR on the Turn) sometimes raise. But you need a read to be able to differentiate bewtweenthe two. I usually don't respect players much when they call down, hit their hand and then don't raise, so I think raise if OK too, obviously call the 3-bet though expect to lose most of the time (but more than 1:8).

Not particularly having a go at you Scotch, but do you guys only have problems in the first few rounds of a game? or with new players? Why have you got no reads otherwise? Before I play a hand at a table I have notes on 2-3 of my opponents, even if they were complete unknowns. Obviously in a game with few showdowns individual reads are harder to pick up on, but you still have a read on how many players are seeing the flop, how aggressive the game is etc. On Stars you get to see the flop % before sitting down. No individual reads - you still have a table-conditions read. I sometimes suspect that people just cannot be bothered to post their reads, or are too lazy to read hands they are not directly involved in. This is not good. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[chio]

i think there is some selection bias in these posts in that, yes, most of the hands people have probelms with are the ones with no read, and that constitutes most of the posts we see

most times i have a read, the right decision is more clear, i.e. if i know the opponent to be very loose or a LAG or a bluffer, and i might not make a post about it

the point of the "no reads" posts are to find a semi-consensus as to what the "standard" play would in a particular situation, and i think that type of discussion is very very useful and constructive, as it is basis for my decisions, altering it as i collect reads and an image

and yes, most of the hands i post with no reads come from the first few rounds of a table or with new players

just my thoughts

[Scotch78]

I can't speak for other players, but reading my opponents is my biggest weakness. Compound that with the fact that I'm still learning how to use PT, and I don't have a lot of info to post on my opponents. If I have zero reads though, it was probably in the first few orbits. That said, this is the part of my game I'm working hardest on, and any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Scott

[naphand]

Yep, that's fine and I agree with what you say. But I think we see too many "no reads" hands and I suspect it is more than just early session hands. Also, you still have an idea of how the table is playing, or at least you should and possibly you have an idea of how your opponents see you.

Developing reads comes from analysing hands with bits and pieces of information, not a complete opus on an individual player. I believe Mason says that the best way to reduce variance is to develop good reads, so rather than "the variance is killing me", more "how do I reduce my variance and maintain EV" please.

And yes, it is ok to discuss standard lines against an unknown but I think too much emphasis on this, just like too much emphasis on PF standards, is missing out on discussion of the other 80% of poker played at the tables.

It was not an attack on anybody, just my usual finger-in-the-eye can't-we-break-the-mould type of mini-rants. You can safely ignore if you wish. But I think it is right.... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[imitation]

I think another contributing factor to the "no-reads factor" is that player turnover at most tables is ridiculous, especially if I'm playing 4 handed or less. I'll often see players sit and play 5-10hands and leave, this can continue for upwards of an hour.

[Scotch78]

I just stumbled onto the advanced notes export, so hopefully that will help. Feel free to prod me if my posts don't improve as far as reads go, the criticism can only help.

Scott

[Notbadatall]

I guess it is a fold if he 3-bets it, you have no information at all and you didn´t get any info when you were checking the turn. But I guess checking the turn was the right move but then you can´t raise the river either when you do not have a stronger hand than A8. I would only have called it when he bet the river.

[TJD]

I like your "breaking the mould" posts.

The difficulty about our reads is that they are often based on insufficient data.

If you have played with Harry in your home game for 10 years then you probably will be OK.

You see a guy who you "think" is passive online based on the 100 hands he has played against you and he bets the river when an Ace comes. Does that guarantee an Ace or 2 pair? The read is a bit thin to lay down the winning hand.

In the hand being discussed, I just call the river bet and update the notes on ths player. Without knowing him really well, I suspect the EV of raising must be suspect. If he is bluffing, we gain nothing 'cos he folds. We wil lose if he has us beat and will gain if he is behind AND calls. This must be close enough to be just not worth it surely.

The "no reads" comments should probably include "I do not know this guy very well; only played 50 hands against him"

Is it ED who talks about you having to be VERY confident in your reads before you make an expensive decision?

trevor

[TJD]

I bet the turn. Can't hurt can it? LOTS of players just call the flop to "have a look". Probably helps; you may not even HAVE a decision on the river /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Of course if he calls turn and then CR the river when A comes - ouch! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

trevor

[Zele]

Bet the turn planning to fold to a raise and check through the river if you don't improve. When you bet this river, just call his CR.

[FishyWhale]

Unless he is totally mad, he has KQ, a set, or A3, AT, AJ. You can fold here (and that´s why I would just have called river: he knows the ace most likely helped you, and still he bets into you).

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it ED who talks about you having to be VERY confident in your reads before you make an expensive decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean Miller? I don't classify 1 bet as "expensive". I think an expensive decision is one where it is going to cost you multiple bets, and/or where the pot reaches sufficient size (as a consequence) that you are obliged to call down.

In SSHE quite some time is spent talking about how calling is almost always the preferable "mistake" to make, as it costs a lot less than folding the best hand, and frequently costs less than giving up on a pot in which you still have some equity. Small pots being the exception.

There are reads and reads. I am confident of my reads in the majority of situations, but some days I am a bit off, not firing on all cylinders, tired, whatever. There are reads of players, table conditions and what you think you table image is. Most of this information is never presented (I am guilty of this myself) but can make a huge difference. There are also the recent hands to consider. I think even "2nd orbit, opponent cold-called from MP and folded flop, table is playing quite loose."

My early notes on players really are tiny bits of info, and can get quite lengthy until I shorten them down when I have an overall read (usually, in capitals, "MORON"... /images/graemlins/grin.gif). I know it can be tricky and lengthy thinking about this before typing posts, but in the marginal situations we often face they can be the difference between a fold and a raise. PT reveals even more info about people, though this is usually after some hands are played. And I appreciate that table-turnover is a big issue.

My girlfriend has commented inthe past that I make reads on people after only a few hands, and tiny bits of information. This is true, but on a 6-handed table where 57% are seeing the flop and the guy to my right limps in CO with A3o, calls my raise, I don't need a second look to start to classify him as loose. This is hugely important: players who limp A3o like this are not good, they are LOOSE and probably STUPID. Blinds who keep calling raises and calling flops are not getting a run of good cards, they are over-defending and almost certainly playing loose out of the blinds too. Ditto for players who always call to the River with any PP.


It's like the weights on a sliding scale. Some plays are clearly found among fish much more often, and when I see it I tilt the scales in that direction, sometimes substantially depending on the stupidity of the play. Watch 2 orbits, see how many players play hands for a limp, 1st-in or out of position with very marginal hands. Who is doing the raising, very often the player raising is one of the better players at the table (and should certainly be treated with more respect as he will cost you more bets when you get it wrong, even as a maniac or LAG). Fish a Mr McLoose are easy to spot, aggro players need more time and I guess as I move up this will make reads harder to define so quickly, though I doubt (from what I have seen) this will be significantly more difficult at $5/10, and even observing the $10/20 games I have picked up on players very quickly. Even a read of "not fish" is a read (that is the player is not clearly one of the two table Goons you have spotted so far).

Sorry to harp on about this, but reading play such a massive part of eking out extra bets and makes the game a whole lot more interesting. Even getting a read wrong and losing is more fun than playing robot. I guess I am in a better position than some as I only play 2 tables at once, I really struggle to make reads 3-tabling and if people are posting from 3/4-tabling session then perhaps that is why so many hands are getting posted like this. Understandable. Though I think it is better to post "What's the standard line against and unknown" rather than "no reads", as that is what we are talking about.

That still leaves table conditions - flop %, aggro/passive, limpers in what position etc. what Hero has done to date etc.

Just as a quick example - I sat in on a Stars $2/4 game and got pocket TT in the SB (2nd hand in), flop JTx, bet, raise blah blah, Turn J, capped, River T capped (he shows QJ). A dream hand to start the session (gloat, gloat). Not only did my opponent in the hand leave the table immediately, but the rest of the table gave me a huge amount of respect for the next 30-40 hands and even beyond. Just one hand, I cannot make the cards come, but in the eyes of the rest of the table, I was some kind of poker-demon. I have also noticed that on some tables if I sit in with a "large" buy-in ($150 is my standard at $2/$4) quite often 1 or 2 players leave (in a game that has been stable for a while before I join). Maybe I am paranoid, but it does not happen if I sit in with a stack that is smaller than the biggest stack or only just above the table average. Schneids has a policy on this, it is different to mine, I like to come into a game un-noticed.

My point being, I do not really believe there is "no information" table where no-one knows anything about the table, the players, their image or the table conditions. Even saying you sit in with $X more dollars than the biggest stack is some information.

Maybe this should be in the psychology section.... /images/graemlins/confused.gif