Apparently The Biggest Problem in Poker...

[Dov]

Almost every post I've been reading lately has a beginning that goes something like this:

'I just sat down so no reads yet...'

It seems like before we get our feelers out is when we get into the most trouble. I have a proposed solution in 3 parts. The game situation doesn't matter, either. (Ring/Tourney/Full/SH/Whatever)

1. Watch the other players at the table for a few hands before you add this table to your mulit-tabling array. Don't start going crazy until you know who you're dealing with.

2. If you have a monster before you get any reads, you should already know what to do.

3. If you have a marginal hand before you have any reads, go by the math. If you don't know the math, don't play marginal hands, especially out of position.

Getting a line on your opponents should be done BEFORE you post your first blind. Failure to do so indicates a serious leak in your game: Game Selection.

Keep in mind that a lot of us here at 2+2 play at the same tables occasionally. It's always good to know what you're up against even if it is LL.

BTW, for those who use poker tracker, you should never, ever, ever, ever be in a game where you don't have at least one of the players, and preferably a few of the players pegged cold. When you first log into the site of your choice, YOU SHOULD SEARCH FOR THE FISH YOU WANT TO PLAY WITH AND JOIN HIS TABLE! That's online game selection.

If you don't have a personal fish list yet and have played more than 500 hands online, then you have no idea what you are doing. This is not intended to offend anyone, just to open your eyes to the goldmine that is already yours for the taking.

Just some random thoughts in the middle of the night. Sorry for rambling. Hope this helps someone.

Dov

[slavic]

You could just play as bad as I do and then the other players flock to my table.

[Al Mirpuri]

Your words are pure gold. I hope everyone has eyes to see.

[hagelito]

I think it's just as good to join a table with "unknown" players to find new fish /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[pdubz]

Actually, I just join random tables and whisper quietly "Here fishy fishy fishy..." That works pretty well.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Almost every post I've been reading lately has a beginning that goes something like this:

'I just sat down so no reads yet...'


[/ QUOTE ]

I've had an issue with this for a long while. Unfortunately, i think that line also applies to the posters who've been multitabling for a couple hours and still don't know what their table is like. So they just type that disclaimer to make it sound better and maybe excuse their play if it's bad. Fact is, i don't think your typical online player, many 2+2er's included, know how to assess a table texture or a players play other than when it's obvious.

Proof is that very rarely do we ever see a hand post with a decent description of the opponents. Those tend to stand out. Usually, it's either no description, or the line you mention above preceding the hand. I mean c'mon, are most of the hands we see the first hands (orbit) when a poster sits down? Doubt it.

Nice post.

b

[ QUOTE ]
Getting a line on your opponents should be done BEFORE you post your first blind. Failure to do so indicates a serious leak in your game: Game Selection.


[/ QUOTE ]

Although i will agree that this is good to do, I don't think this is a serious leak if you can get the gist of the players within an orbit or 2 as live players do. We're only talking a few hands here per session. Online the players change so much, the table could change by the time you finally get in. As mentioned above, IMO, the problem is many are playing an hour or so and still don't really know what type of game they're in.

[Dov]

You'll never know everyone at the table initially...

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Although i will agree that this is good to do, I don't think this is a serious leak if you can get the gist of the players within an orbit or 2 as live players do.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the whole point. I play mostly live, and can wait a few orbits if I need to. I can also rail the game while waiting to get in if there is a list. But it seems like most of the posters aren't waiting an orbit or two before mixing it up.

I think we are in agreement, so I just wanted to clarify that point.

As put so succinctly before me: If you can't spot the fish, then you are the fish.

Corollary: If you don't look for the fish, you will become the fish when you play a marginal hand.

[Noo Yawk]

Nice post Dov.

Only the truly winning player understands that their hand has a relative value that is player dependant. Way too many posters here think that there is an absolute value to their hands and play them as such. It makes responding to post's much more difficult without proper player descriptions.

[CaptObvious]

I think my man Mike McDermott says it perfectly in Rounders: "Here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first 15 minutes at the table. Then you are the sucker."

[sirtemple]

I find it much more difficult to get reads on players online compared with live games. Beacuse of this I have really curtailed my online play. There are so many ways to read a player in person, but you only have the bets to follow online. It usually takes me quite a few laps to start getting reads on players. How can you do it one pass?

Jason

[SA125]

I love Noo Yawk's post's, and not just because I live there.
But here's a question. You have QQ in EP and raise. You get coldcalled by the button. Flop J8xr. Bet - call. Turn x. Bet -raise. Do you 3 bet? The answer is sometimes you know you're beat. You ch/call it down and find a moron who coldcalled J8s (QQ 80% pf fav) h/u on the button because......it was sooted.

"Way too many posters here think that there is an absolute value to their hands and play them as such"

Most times rightfully so. Then they realize the opposite.

Steve A.

[slavic]

That's the whole point. I play mostly live, and can wait a few orbits if I need to. I can also rail the game while waiting to get in if there is a list. But it seems like most of the posters aren't waiting an orbit or two before mixing it up.

I'm not trying to pick on you here, I agree with most of your post. However I think most posters don't list a description because they are lazy in their play. They simply don't look for the information.

Your position of waiting a few orbits is tough online though. In general as much as a 3rd of the table has turned over in 2 orbits and that percentage is higher if you sit-out. In a short handed game that looks juicy I'll post UTG if I think it will save the table.

[Boopotts]

Well, I don't doubt that doing the things on the list will improve your bottom line, but...

I've never had a fish list.I just assume that at least 60%-- and usually more-- of the players at the table play poorly. I'm almost never wrong.

Also, I never wait to start multi-tabling for the same reasons as those mentioned above.

And, I don't have poker tracker.

This being said, I've been able to win slightly more than 3 BB's/ 100 hands for almost half a million online hands now. I'm not saying this because I think my win rate is gaudy--it isn't-- or to pat myself on the back for not needing to use your checklist in order to win. I only point this out to demonstrate that the real essentials that go into a winning hold 'em game take a while to learn, and until you do everything else is a distant second.

Reading this post I was reminded of Roy Cooke's answer to Abdul Jalib when Abdul asked about raising in EP with KTs. It's not that it's not worth your time to analyse the problem, only that there many other things which are much more important.

[ACW]

[ QUOTE ]
It usually takes me quite a few laps to start getting reads on players. How can you do it one pass?


[/ QUOTE ]

Last night I sat at a 0.25/0.50 Pot limit table with $36 (max buy-in $50).
Took the blinds then got AA on the button on my third hand.
Raised to $1 from MP, called in two places and I make it $6 to go. I get one caller. Flop Q62 rainbow. Checked to me, I bet the pot and get called (he now has about $10 left). Turn is another Queen.
Checked again to me. Now I know generally these tables are very fishy, so I'm not laying this hand down for $10 (anyone think I should?). I decide to milk the last $10 rather than go for fold equity, as I'm either a huge favourite or a big dog now depending on whether he has a set. So I bet $4. Now he pushes and I know I'm probably in trouble but am pot-committed. He shows Q6 offsuit.

Now, by all means criticise my play, but that's not the point of the post. I've now seen this guy show just one hand and can mark him as a monster fish just from his preflop call. It's amazing how often such idiots reveal themselves.

A few hands later, he min-raised UTG, two callers and I raise pot from MP with JJ. Two callers. When the flop comes AK2 I let the other two fight it out. Fish had 22.

Now there's a huge fish at the table with a big stack. It's only a matter of time before the chips come back - I left within an hour with $68 in spite of being put down to $8 by the two early hits (I was just about to rebuy when I flopped a set and tripled up!).

[Noo Yawk]

Hi SA,

Thanks for the kind words. In your example, the player you described is typical of someone that plays better post-flop than pre-flop. As a matter of fact, that describes most players that are still bad but have experience, and are the most common type of player in mid limit games.

Whether I 3 bet, call down, or fold depends highly on how they play me. Too many players like to try and move me off hands with A-J or small pairs because they put me on overcards. I tend to 3-bet them as they will still pay me off all the way. Other times I'm beat, but still have upto five outs with a reasonable chance I'm still ahead and check-call down. There are a handful of players that only make this move with a huge hand, and if the pot odds don't justify a 5 outer, I can lay this down with relative ease, but that one is rare. I would have to know this player well and what they thought of me to do this.

Other times my prefered line is to spike the Q on the river. Thats how a true pro would play it. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[edge]

I think one of the reasons we see so many hands posted without reads is because these are the troublesome hands. Once you have a read that a certain player is a maniac, you're going to always try to get KK and QQ all-in preflop. With a read that the player is extremely tight, you may want to back off with those hands.

When you have a read on a player, a lot of the time, the close decisions that are the focus of most posted hands are obvious. Without any reads, the play is less obvious, which is why we see them posted.

[ZeeJustin]

If you can put your opponent on an accurate range of hands w/ accurate probability weighting of each hand, the correct play is generally easy.

[hagelito]

Well Jason, you forgot that showdowns show what cards the oppoonents play in different positions and what they call preflop raises with, that's a pretty good tell if you are up against fishy players. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Last night I sat at a 0.25/0.50 Pot limit table with $36 (max buy-in $50).

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, this is a tell too. Anyone who sits in a PL/NL game with a max buy in who doesn't buy in for the max, is immediately noted by me. I then proceed to put tremendous pressure on that player because I know he is more likely to fold than not. Why else would you buy in short unless you were scared money?

Dov

[Dov]

Yes, but you won't post a hand here that starts with:

Just sat down so no reads yet...

You'll know how to play your hands as soon as you sit down. My post is really regarding game selection.

[ QUOTE ]
In a short handed game that looks juicy I'll post UTG if I think it will save the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the whole point. You have already decided that the game is 'juicy'. You based that on something. You selected that game for a reason. It seems likely to me that you will know what to do. Obviously, you know enough to know that the game will break if you don't play. Most people who post hands with the tagline I mentioned, don't seem to think that way.

Dov

[Dov]

That's why I was suggesting that you get a read on someone BEFORE you tangle with them. You will save yourself a lot of headache.

[Saint_D]

It's always easier when you have a read. I think saying "Just sat down, no reads" is shorthand for "This is a typical table. The one rock folded. The other players in the hand with me are typical pre-flop 40-50% players. The player I went to the showdown with hasn't shown a lot of skill, or lack of skill post flop. Lets discuss this hand with any considerations of the other players skill aside."

At least, that's what I mean. Typically the hands I post are ones I went up against one of the 5 people at the table I don't have notes on yet.

There is also the issue of multi-tabling. If I play one table, I am pretty good. Say I can win 4+bb/100. If I play 4 tables I am more like 2bb/100. 4x1=4, 2x4=8 therefore, even with a reduced bb/100 rate, my hourly rate doubles with 4 tables. I wish these were my real winrates, but you see the point I am making.

-Saint_D

[ACW]

Good point, but in my case it's only a tell about my bankroll. It actually gets around the scared money problem for me. I have a strict rule that I always buy in for 2% of my bankroll, so it doesn't hurt a bit if I lose it.
I'll concede it may be a leak, as I'm not always covering all the poor players, but in my case I don't think it's a tell in the sense you refer to. Of course, it is a tell as to how I've been doing lately, for anyone who compares it with earlier in the week - whether this is a problem or not I'm not sure.

[mdjohnny]

Im very intrigued by Poker Tracker. I keep a list of players and notes on them in a book but i would love to have something more sophisticated and detailed. But alas, i use a Mac, anybody know of anything similar for the Mac OS. thanks fellas.

[sirtemple]

How do you know that the hand you watched is typical or not? I guess I'm wary of putting to much emphasis on just a few hands, I'm afraid they may be advertising for the new player - me. I'm probably giving them way too much credit. This is a viable tactic in RL games, but probably doesn't actually happen online.

Taking what I see at face value would probably help me out. Likewise trying to advertise is probably useless.

Jason

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, this is a tell too. Anyone who sits in a PL/NL game with a max buy in who doesn't buy in for the max, is immediately noted by me. I then proceed to put tremendous pressure on that player because I know he is more likely to fold than not. Why else would you buy in short unless you were scared money?

Dov

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more. Anyone who buys in for less than the max at the PLO and NL Hold 'em games I play in get pegged immediately, and I put pressure on them when I read them for drawing hands, and will also tend to fold more often to those players when they make large bets.