Newest Pet Peeve. (Reads) [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

bunky9590

02-21-2005, 02:16 PM

I dunno what forum this belongs in , but this seems good enough.

This cracks me up. People post "reads" in the form of stats. Now while the children of the video game generation may find this comforting, it tells you very little about how they play in precise situations. The stats give you a baseline on their play, but, I would hardly call it a "read".

Example: posting 58/15/1.4 as a read tells you the guy is LAG. What is doesn't tell you is in what situations he is LAG. Does he checkrase with top pair or better? Does he ram and jam weak draws out of position, does he cold call with A rag to an EP raise? Is he a turn folder, does he call down with longshot draws and bottom pair in the face of aggression. Does he bluff the river? Does he calue bet light or only bet when he has the goods. Does he checkraise the turn light?

I ask people these questions and they look at me like I'm from Mars. They just point to the stats and I shake my head in disapointment.

In a live game, does the guy in the 8 seat have 55/3/0.5 blazing on his forehead? Not the last time I checked. More important than the stats is what do these player do in different situations. It gives you a better idea what to do with 88 on a flop of A64 with 2 hearts if you get checkriased to know if this guy does it with the ace rather than a draw.

An excersize for you people should be to make actual notes on players and what they do in different situations. I play 4 tables and can still do this. It will help your game to make better decisions against these opponents if you actually pay attention to "How" they play.

Granted I use pokertracker just like the next guy, but I don't use gametime. I can figure out in about 5-10 minutes what any particular players tendencies are, loose/tight/passive/or aggressive. It allows me to make more detailed notes on the types of situations they play fast/slow etc.

Rant over. Discuss.

SCfuji

02-21-2005, 02:18 PM

could you give a more detailed example of how you take your notes?

lets say you saw a lag c/r the flop with mid pair good kicker heads up. would you assume that he c/r weaker hands out of position the next time he did it?

DMBFan23

02-21-2005, 02:20 PM

I see a lot of value in what you're saying, but why wouldnt you combine a good reading ability with the actual stats? more information can be nothing but good, if you can filter out what's salient.

reid savid

02-21-2005, 02:24 PM

I agree completely....I only play one mid-limit table so my reads are very detailed. This relieves my stress after losing because I know my actions were based on specific reads.

Evan

02-21-2005, 02:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Granted I use pokertracker just like the next guy, but I don't use gametime.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're doing yourself a disservice dude.

SCfuji

02-21-2005, 02:26 PM

its tough using gametime 8-tabling /images/graemlins/frown.gif

bunky9590

02-21-2005, 02:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
lets say you saw a lag c/r the flop with mid pair good kicker heads up. would you assume that he c/r weaker hands out of position the next time he did it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Will check raise mid pair out of positon HU"

Beauty part about notes is you can change them as he (or she) changes.

Now as soon as I see a person I have notes on, I reasd them right away, and play to what the notes have. If they seem different, I'll make another note. You'd be surprised how much info you get on a persons game.

One of my favorite notes:

"will call the the river with any PP regardless of board"

How many players you know with that characteristic. So much easier to value bet middle pair against them.

bunky9590

02-21-2005, 02:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Granted I use pokertracker just like the next guy, but I don't use gametime.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're doing yourself a disservice dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know people like to see the "numbers" in front of them with gametime. I have PT up and running when Im playign and can search them for a specific # if I need to. Thing is I rarely need to.

You honestly need the numbers to have a baseline on the person? If you're 8 tabling maybe, but 4 tables its totally not necessary. Though if its your thing and thats what you need, so be it.

I'll take the more specific stuff any day.

By the way, (and I'm sure you'll agree)

58/3/1.4 isn't a read, it's a stat.

bvaughn

02-21-2005, 02:34 PM

Using stats to try to read a 58/15 LAG is much, much different than using stats to read a 15/5 rock, or even a 13/10 TAG. Readings LAG's, whether live or online is many times harder because they could be pushing a weak draw, or ramming and jamming middle pair on any given occassion. But, just because you catch him ramming and jamming with middle pair, doesn't mean that next time he's ramming and jamming it's with middle pair. Notes are just a small peice of reading a LAG, just like stats are. Stats for me come in most helpful against tight players because if a 15/5 raises or reraises, then you have a very good idea what type of hand you are up against. I've found that more often than not, my "read" on tight players is correct based strictly on their stats and nothing else.

As far comparing online stats to live, that is a classic case of apples vs. oranges. First and foremost, playing one table live (versus 4 tables online) gives you much more time to observe hands. Also, your visual input is so much more detailed live (what the player looks like, how the player bets, etc.) therefore it is very easy to remember how certain hands have played out against this particular opponent. So live, stats are basically unnecessary because in the course of playing you can observe enough to make fairly accurate reads on players, as opposed to online 4-tabling where the only thing you have to go on is whether player ABC bet, raised, re-raised, and their stats.

Nick B.

02-21-2005, 02:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Rant over. Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The way people use the statistics are awful. Poker isn't chess or any other game which you can analyze and come up with an exact answer. I like when people say they aren't being aggressive enough because of what they see in Pokertracker. Aggression factor is just a number and doesn't tell the whole story. If I always cap with bottom pair and call down with top pair, my aggression factor won't be much different than if I always capped with top pair and called down with bottom pair. Clearly one situation is a lot more profitable than the other, but you can't tell just by looking at the numbers.

Chairman Wood

02-21-2005, 03:03 PM

Just like specific notes like you describe, the more information the better.

bunky9590

02-21-2005, 03:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. The way people use the statistics are awful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear yah Nick. Its not that stats don't have their place (they do) but it is far from having a "read" on people.

Some players wouldn't know a read if it smacked them in the forehead. I find player specific notes way more valuable than just numbers on the screen. But, that's just me.

7ontheline

02-21-2005, 03:25 PM

You and Naphand should go have a love-in somewhere together and rail on and on about how PT is incomplete info. . .

Seriously though, I personally like having stats at my disposal. No, they aren't concrete reads, but they help my game. I'd rather have them and then try to fill in around them then start blank.

BottlesOf

02-21-2005, 03:35 PM

Lighten up, Francis.

bunky9590

02-21-2005, 03:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You and Naphand should go have a love-in somewhere together and rail on and on about how PT is incomplete info. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm already spoken for , but thanks anyway /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously though, I personally like having stats at my disposal. No, they aren't concrete reads, but they help my game. I'd rather have them and then try to fill in around them then start blank.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please read some of my thoughts in more detail. I said I have PT up and running when I play if I NEED specific STATS.

More of my play comes from the notes taken, rather than the numbers on the screen.

What I'm saying in essence is that people use STATS as READS, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

DMBFan23

02-21-2005, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying in essence is that people use STATS as READS, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree here, Bunky. a stat is a weak read. if I have a significant number of hands on villain, and he raises 20% of the time preflop, that's a significant read. while not as specific as "raised from EP with A7o" it is certainly something that can be acted upon. It would be nice to know WHICH extra hands he raises, but I'm still going to isolate him more than normal.

this of course can all be augmented with specific reads of his postflop play, which I have a feeling was the main point of your original post, and a good point.

bunky9590

02-21-2005, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have to disagree here, Bunky. a stat is a weak read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are saying, I put stats as more of a baseline on a player. i just don't qualify it as a "read" per se. But, I see your point.

[ QUOTE ]
this of course can all be augmented with specific reads of his postflop play, which I have a feeling was the main point of your original post, and a good point.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was pretty much my main point.

it does help in some circumstances in PF play. e.g. Cold calls PF with any ace. If I have AK, I can hammer away, but still have to be careful on a board of AT864.

Still has 4 cards that could ave 2 paired him. Not saying I wouldn't value bet anyay, but if I'm raised and he's not a donk, and I have a note that says "won't raise w/o at least 2 pair" I can get away from a hand like that and not lose much sleep over it.

J.R.

02-21-2005, 03:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can figure out in about 5-10 minutes what any particular players tendencies are, loose/tight/passive/or aggressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a 5 - 10 minute head start on you, and my reads are in virtually every situation more exact than the limited generalizations you have based on a small bit of ancedotal evidence. You are basing your generalized reads on what you recall an opponent doing over those 5-10 minutes, I am basing my reads on exactly what they did over a much larger frame of time, often many hours worth of play.

[ QUOTE ]
It allows me to make more detailed notes on the types of situations they play fast/slow etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what "it" you are referring to, but because I have pt/playerview I don't have to waste the time that you waste attempting to determine whether a player is "loose-passive" or "tight-aggressive". I can instead focus on more specific reads. What you chose to ignore are the facts that 1) I can take manual notes in addition to using pt/playerview and 2) I can focus my attention on obtaining more specific reads because I already have a good idea of the general nature of my opponents based on their pt/playerview stats.

[ QUOTE ]
Example: posting 58/15/1.4 as a read tells you the guy is LAG. What is doesn't tell you is in what situations he is LAG. Does he checkrase with top pair or better? Does he ram and jam weak draws out of position, does he cold call with A rag to an EP raise? Is he a turn folder, does he call down with longshot draws and bottom pair in the face of aggression. Does he bluff the river? Does he calue bet light or only bet when he has the goods. Does he checkraise the turn light?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why you're wasting your time trying to come up with a general label for your opponent which is often flawed because of a small sample size that is further biased by your selective memory, I'm making these observations/notes. While your wasting your time searching for stats in PT when you deem them necessary, I have them at hand and am more closely following the action as it occurs and affording myself more time to think though the hand and my options.

bunky9590

02-21-2005, 03:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lighten up, Francis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whassa matter, having a job make you grumpy? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

No way I'm gonna lighten up on this. I'm not saying stats don't have a place, it's just that its not the entire game.

Aukai

02-21-2005, 04:00 PM

Villian is 63/0 after 120 hands. AFT of .9. Not one raise preflop. Thought that meant a whole lot given his pf and flop action. But...

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
1 fold, Hero raises, 1 fold, MP2 3-bets, 5 folds, Hero calls.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 8/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/club.gif, J/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
Hero bets, MP2 raises, Hero calls.

Turn: (5.75 BB) 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets, Hero calls.

River: (7.75 BB) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 9.75 BB

Results in white below: 
Hero has Qh Ah (one pair, aces).
MP2 has 8d Kc (flush, ace high).
Outcome: MP2 wins 9.75 BB.

bunky9590

02-21-2005, 04:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have a 5 - 10 minute head start on you, and my reads are in virtually every situation more exact than the limited generalizationa you have based on a small bit of ancedotal evidence. You are basing your generalized reads on what you recall an opponent doing over those 5-10 minutes, I am basing my reads on exactly what they did over a much larger fram of time, often many hours worth of play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you've datamined a crap load of hands you're head start isn't that big. I have a 60,000 database and noone in that Db has more that like 1200 hands. Not exactly a huge sample, Ive seen some weird runs in data over 1200 hands. So unless you have a Db of around 2000k hands per person, I doubt your statistci add up to a hill of beans anyway. If your database is substantial, obviuosly it has some merit and I can't dispute that. But if someone post stats on some party clown that he has 50 hands on it doesn't mean squat.

[ QUOTE ]
What you chose to ignore are the facts that 1) I can take manual notes in addition to using pt/playerview and 2) I can focus my attention on obtaining more specific reads because I already have a good idea of the general nature of my opponents based on their pt/playerview stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. yep you can take notes, and I sure hope you do.

2. See my above response, if you in fact have several hours of play , fine. If you don't your stats are pretty much worthless.

[ QUOTE ]
Why you're wasting your time trying to come up with a general label for your opponent which is often flawed because of a small sample size that is further biased by your selective memory, I'm making these observations/notes

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not wasting time at all. It takes almost 0 effort to tag someone. Oh yeah, and your stats aren't flawed by small sample size? You really have 10,000 hands minimum on some players? once again, if you do, thats great, I seriously doubt it unless you play full time and at the same times of day. But, hey do what you like.

i'm not saying everyone is guilty of this (you may not be) but some players just post stats as a read (w/o how many hands) and have NO specific reads on a player.

[ QUOTE ]
While your wasting your time searching for stats in PT when you deem them necessary, I have them at hand and am more closely following the action as it occurs and affording myself more time to think though the hand and my options.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its rare that during a session (up to 3 hours) that I need specific numbers on someone. I just feel some people try to play this like a video game, while it may have you win (to a certain extent) A lot of 2p2 players just get by on preflop play and make money in small stakes games against abysmal competition.

Stats are fine, but they do not make the poker world go 'round.

bunky9590

02-21-2005, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Villian is 63/0 after 120 hands. AFT of .9.

[/ QUOTE ]

120 hand samples are EXACTLY why I'm posting this hand. That's not a read, that's a lame meaningless stat.

BottlesOf

02-21-2005, 04:13 PM

You're of course right. I am one of the guys who more often than not has only the stats to offer when posting an online hand due to multi-tabling. I try and get reads too, and I make notes when I do, but sometimes all I have are the stats. If you were ever to tell me the stats don't say much, I'd say, they say something, and something's better than nothing.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

gmanko

02-21-2005, 04:16 PM

I added PokerTracker to my handtyped notes, and I still prefer to use both. For some reason GameTime and PlayerView won't run on my computer (Win 98), so in that way I am kind of forced to.

I put a little comment at the top of the player notes while I am in PokerTracker (EG "PT Fish" or "PT Maniac") to clue me in on some things I may have missed during play, but I still like taking notes (Caller heads-up, button defender, and my favorite - FOLDER) that tell me something I can use in specific situations.

In general I think that PT can give you tendencies, but only handwritten notes can truly give you a read on a specific type of hand.

Also, the PT stats CAN be misleading - there may be odd styles where the percentages come out right. For example there may be a player who overplays small pps but underplays medium suited connectors by the same amount, and PT will treat them the same.

Evan

02-21-2005, 04:18 PM

I totally agree. I bet I take just as many notes as you do on the things that PT can't capture. But there is a lot to be said for having numbers to look at if you ask me. I'm not saying you should chose one over the other, I'm asking why not take both?

bunky9590

02-21-2005, 04:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying you should chose one over the other, I'm asking why not take both?

[/ QUOTE ]

if the sample sizes had at least 1k, I'd use it. But having 150 hands on some Party Donk doesn't tell me much. That's all I'm saying. Whereas specific plays paint you a better picture of how that donk thinks.

Aukai

02-21-2005, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
120 hand samples are EXACTLY why I'm posting this hand. That's not a read, that's a lame meaningless stat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely, which is why I posted the hand. At the time, in the midst of 4-tabling, I saw those stats, saw his action, and put him on exactly AA or AK. Clearly, the stats provided me with an inferior read, but one on which I thought I could rely on confidently at the time.

bicyclekick

02-21-2005, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Villian is 63/0 after 120 hands. AFT of .9.

[/ QUOTE ]

120 hand samples are EXACTLY why I'm posting this hand. That's not a read, that's a lame meaningless stat.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree it's not a read persay, it's most definately not a lame meaningless stat. In fact, I think something like that has great importance.

SomethingClever

02-21-2005, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"will call the the river with any PP regardless of board"

[/ QUOTE ]

I make these kinds of notes as well, but rely on PV until I've had a chance to observe something really telling like this.

J.R.

02-21-2005, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But if someone post stats on some party clown that he has 50 hands on it doesn't mean squat.

[/ QUOTE ]

The conclusion that someone is loose-passive after sitting at a table for 3 orbits is more accurate? Which is based on more data, and which isn't influenced memeory limitations and selection bias?

[ QUOTE ]
It takes almost 0 effort to tag someone. Oh yeah, and your stats aren't flawed by small sample size?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there are limations when refering to stats, however, some stats converge more quickly than others. You act as if I am not aware that the reliability of statistical information will be influenced by the sample size. Perhaps you are neglecting to consider the insufficiencies that a generalized read based on one's selective memeory of a few hands an opponent may play- after all a "read" is just a simple conclusion drawn from a body of evidence that can be statistically represented.

The fact is that statistics are far less likely to be flawed based upon and insufficient smaple size and far more telling than your generalized tag after based upon "zero effort."

[ QUOTE ]
Stats are fine, but they do not make the poker world go 'round.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one claims they do. But to understimate there validity and seemingly advocate wholly disregarding them in favor of much more statisically unreliable "reads" is folly. Use them both, use them in conjunction, and use them with adequate caution. But don't under-estimate their usefullness through willful ignorance.

I think your response to me demonstrates you are unquestionably under-estimating the usefullness and reliability of statistictical information, but to each his own.

bunky9590

02-21-2005, 04:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
While I agree it's not a read persay, it's most definately not a lame meaningless stat. In fact, I think something like that has great importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno about great importance, only thing it tells me is he's loose passive PF. Which apparently didnt do much for him this hand as he 3 bet K8o (PF that is.)

if it was for say 10X that many hands it would be a little different. Like I said in another part of this post, its okay to give you some sort of a baseline.

I also know that the better players don't just rely on the stats, they use player specific notes. I'm in now way lumping everyone into this, but when people ask my opinion on a hand and I ask for reads and they give me stats on say 150 hands and nothing specific, I cringe. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Evan

02-21-2005, 04:32 PM

Okay, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think 150 hand stats actually say quite a bit and are pretty valuable. To each his own.

Ulysses

02-21-2005, 04:37 PM

Things that don't bother me at all:

People calling something a "read" that I may or may not think is a "read."

People calling themselves a "pro" 'cause they want to call themselves a "pro."

BusterStacks

02-21-2005, 04:39 PM

The more tables you play, the more you are going to have to rely on stat-reads. Sure I could play 1 table and get a feel for each player, but multiply that by 4... 8... and it's overwhelming. I don't think you are giving up a TON by having reads on extreme players and using stat-reads for the more moderate cases.

DMBFan23

02-21-2005, 04:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While I agree it's not a read persay, it's most definately not a lame meaningless stat. In fact, I think something like that has great importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno about great importance, only thing it tells me is he's loose passive PF. Which apparently didnt do much for him this hand as he 3 bet K8o (PF that is.)

if it was for say 10X that many hands it would be a little different. Like I said in another part of this post, its okay to give you some sort of a baseline.

I also know that the better players don't just rely on the stats, they use player specific notes. I'm in now way lumping everyone into this, but when people ask my opinion on a hand and I ask for reads and they give me stats on say 150 hands and nothing specific, I cringe. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

prolly a byproduct of multitabling, as I think you pointed out.

bunky9590

02-21-2005, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The conclusion that someone is loose-passive after sitting at a table for 3 orbits is more accurate? Which is based on more data, and which isn't influenced memeory limitations and selection bias?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look J.R., I'm not holding you in contempt here. I know what you're saying. But, let's not split hairs here. If I see a guy play almost every hand preflop and jsut call call call for three orit, you don't figue him for loose passive?

Same as if you see a guy fold fold fold? granted I don't 8 table, I only 4 table and can keep up on reads and notes the entire time. If you rely on stats to the extent you do, fine. That is you prerogative, I'm not talking down to you for it. Like I said before though, if the sample size had any depth to it (lets say even 500 hands, fair enough?) it would have much more impact on the way I handle them, problem is in my database of almost 6000 players, theres less than 20 with 500 hands or better and only 3 with over a thousand. And with those , I have a lot of specific notes on them. I just have a reall good memory on the cats I play against. Maybe everyone doesn't and i'm wrong for figuring they should.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course there are limations when refering to stats, however, some stats converge more quickly than others

[/ QUOTE ]

the only one I know that converges quickly is VPIP.

[ QUOTE ]
You act as if I am not aware that the reliability of statistical information will be influenced by the sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said, nor did I imply that. In fact I'm quite sure you do know the difference. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

jtr

02-21-2005, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But having 150 hands on some Party Donk doesn't tell me much. That's all I'm saying. Whereas specific plays paint you a better picture of how that donk thinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bunky, I'm basically on your side here. But don't you think you could be accused of reading too much into a small sample size of your specific observed plays? If he's truly a donk, how do you know he'll play a situation the same way twice? Also, you only know what situation you were in (e.g., he was overplaying a small pocket pair) after the cards are revealed, and obviously that doesn't happen at all on a lot of hands. So just because he's pushing hard with what might be a small pocket pair on the next hand, that doesn't mean it's what he actually holds.

I know you know all this, but I just wonder whether your "new pet peeve" has led you to overstate the case for read-based decision making.

MarkL444

02-21-2005, 05:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think 150 hand stats actually say quite a bit and are pretty valuable. To each his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

the man is right.

bunky9590

02-21-2005, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bunky, I'm basically on your side here. But don't you think you could be accused of reading too much into a small sample size of your specific observed plays? If he's truly a donk, how do you know he'll play a situation the same way twice? Also, you only know what situation you were in (e.g., he was overplaying a small pocket pair) after the cards are revealed, and obviously that doesn't happen at all on a lot of hands. So just because he's pushing hard with what might be a small pocket pair on the next hand, that doesn't mean it's what he actually holds.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are in a sense correct. i don't know if he'll make the same play again or not, in fact he very well may do somehting completely different. I can only put what I see develop and they may have decided to play oin crack that night as well. Who knows?

Ive just found specifc reads sauch as Cold calls with any ace preflop, or checkraises the turn light to be very valuable in post flop play. whereas one person I can fold TP to a turn checkraise with 95% certainty, against the aforementioned clown with "checkraaises the turn light", I may very well three bet TPTK. just stuff like that. he may very well have a real hand, if so, good for him.

The-Matador

02-21-2005, 06:31 PM

Wouldn't a combination be best?

I don't put a lot of faith in stuff like "checkraises the turn with middle pair" when it happens once, or even twice. Frankly I don't think players are predictable enough to make these sorts of "super" reads on.

However, I do think jotting down betting pattern tendencies and so on is a great idea. Any information is good information. If a guy always bets quick as lightning with a TPTK hand but always slowly bets a set, it's a valuable piece of info, and should be noted.

As for the stats, I think they are ENORMOUSLY valuable. They are unfettered by selective memory and tend to be highly reliable after even 100 hands. Do they fail you sometimes? Of course. But generally I know instantly whether a player has a hand they really like or one they're not sure of based on the betting and their stats, and this is the key. I can tell what kinds of hands I am up against, what their turn aggression *really* means, and so on. Reads based on stats should not be dismissed.

Trix

02-21-2005, 06:39 PM

Thanks, this have been pissing me off aswell.

BradL

02-21-2005, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
People calling themselves a "pro" 'cause they want to call themselves a "pro."

[/ QUOTE ]

ok im a pro then. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

-Brad

bisonbison

02-21-2005, 10:30 PM

to be perfectly honest, if all they post is stats, that's better than nothing.

bernie

02-21-2005, 11:40 PM

I agree totally.

However, the way the forum tends to go, any type of anything to work off of is better than the damn 'no reads' that we tend to get.

I find by not using PT, I can read the opponents better than if I just relied on PT for the exact reasons you state. Then sometimes I'll combine my read, look at their stats, and write a note or 2.

b

bernie

02-21-2005, 11:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But don't you think you could be accused of reading too much into a small sample size of your specific observed plays?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be, but most likely not. Remember, you're not facing thinking players for the most part. Players who's games are thought out and they will use alot of diversion or whatever. Humans in general are creatures of habit. They won't stray too far away from their typical patterns of play. Seeing someone coldcalling preflop alot or failing to protect hands instead just going into calling down mode in a multiway pot aren't doing it to throw a wrong read out.

Most plays they do they do because they will tend to always do it. It's ingrained.

b

bernie

02-21-2005, 11:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but when people ask my opinion on a hand and I ask for reads and they give me stats on say 150 hands and nothing specific, I cringe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya wanna really have fun, ask them for a description of the table texture. Which is one of the simplest/most basic reads you can get. We don't get that that much in many posts.

I like bobbyi's way of having a 'cast of characters'.

b

b

afk

02-21-2005, 11:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
to be perfectly honest, if all they post is stats, that's better than nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, some inkling of your opponent is too vital to leave out of the thread. That said, when I see "Villain is 33/17/3" I often wonder how many hands that is based on. I've been using your guidelines, Bison, as a guideline to lump similar players together - but I can't count the number of times I've seen players switch from a taz, to a moneybag, to an eagle to a whatever simply because I don't have enough hands with them. For players with few hands, some kind of tangible (read: non-numerical) read is necessary - Ie. " numbers say he's passive, and villain just bluff-called his flopped royal flush the whole way...".