Shaking the sand out, Part Deux

[Scotch78]

UTG here is on the tight-passive side, but not a true rock. Hit back or just call it down?

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 max, 5 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with K/images/graemlins/heart.gif, K/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, UTG calls.

Flop: (7.40 SB) 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">UTG bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, UTG calls.

Turn: (5.70 BB) 8/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, Hero . . .

Scott

[EvanJC]

if you have a tight passive read over a decent amount of hands i think you can probably just call down. i dunno. absent of a really solid read though, i think i'd 3bet and let his reaction dictate my river play.

[djoyce003]

Hit back here. He raised UTG, I think he easily has QQ or JJ here...maybe something like A-10. I think you are either waaaaaaaaay behind a set of 10's or 8's...maybe aces, or way ahead of AK, QQ, JJ, A10, etc. If he caps it, call him down on the river.

[Alobar]

I'd 3 bet here, like every time....he didnt cap PF so Im not as worried about aces, 88 and TT would suck ass, but JJ QQ AT KT are all waaaay more likely, and all will pay you off.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
he didnt cap PF so Im not as worried about aces

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
but JJ QQ AT KT are all waaaay more likely, and all will pay you off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree here. This player had a 6% PFR over 600+ hands, he's not raising KT(s) here, and possibly not even AT. Furthermore, this would be an odd line for a passive player with top pair. It really looks like AA or TT to me. I seriously considered folding the turn, but called down since I didn't have any real reads on him, just stats.

Scott

[djoyce003]

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree here. This player had a 6% PFR over 600+ hands, he's not raising KT(s) here, and possibly not even AT. Furthermore, this would be an odd line for a passive player with top pair. It really looks like AA or TT to me. I seriously considered folding the turn, but called down since I didn't have any real reads on him, just stats.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Might have been useful in the original post. I would call down.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Might have been useful in the original post. I would call down.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
UTG here is on the tight-passive side, but not a true rock.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scott

[djoyce003]

yeah but a 600 hand read is pretty solid compared to the normal, 50 hand read.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah but a 600 hand read is pretty solid compared to the normal, 50 hand read.

[/ QUOTE ]

&lt;100 hands isn't a read to me, and I won't post it. How dare you compare me to the newbies that I try so hard to insult! /images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Scott

[djoyce003]

LOL. Well obviously you had enough of a database on this guy to know he's only raising preflop 6% of the time, and enough hands to make this a fairly solid read. I think that would put his UTG raising standards pretty good. That being said I think he's sitting on AK, AA, AQ, QQ,JJ,AA, 10 10 most of the time here. Since he's passive and playing back at you, I call down and expect to get shown 10 10, but I think I see JJ and QQ enough to definitely warrant a call down.

[Alobar]

you might wanna include that hes so rockish he wont raise AT PF next time /images/graemlins/smile.gif

You will still see QQ JJ more than AA TT

and folding to this turn raise is waaaaaaay to weak tight

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd 3 bet here, like every time....he didnt cap PF so Im not as worried about aces, 88 and TT would suck ass, but JJ QQ AT KT are all waaaay more likely, and all will pay you off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hang on now, since it was just HU back to him, he might have not capped the aces for deception purposes.

Edit: That being said, I 3-bet this everytime and bet the river if checked to.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
you might wanna include that hes so rockish he wont raise AT PF next time

[/ QUOTE ]

24/6, which is what I think he was, is not a rock, just slightly tight-passive. That puts him right around the 25th percentile for low VP$IP and PFR. For context, I categorize players in the extreme 10% as clearly tight/loose or aggressive/passive, players in the 10-25% range as (slightly) T/L, A/P, and everyone in the middle 50% becomes "normal". As to not raising AT UTG 5-handed . . . it's certainly passive for a 2+2er, but we're all in the high 25% for PFR. I'm really confused why several people seemed to have trouble with the "on the tight-passive side, but not a true rock." /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Scott

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really confused why several people seemed to have trouble with the "on the tight-passive side, but not a true rock." /images/graemlins/confused.gif



[/ QUOTE ]

Thats because that statement is relative, it means different things to different people. 24/6 is a MUCH better statement as it is quantitave.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats because that statement is relative, it means different things to different people. 24/6 is a MUCH better statement as it is quantitave.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will have to agree with Naphand here. There is way too much emphasis on stats around here, and I'm not going to encourage it. Everything necessary was contained in the qualitative statement.

Scott

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Everything necessary was contained in the qualitative statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why translate a quantitave statement into a qualitative one for us when we can more accurately translate ourselves?

If you think playerview is making us dependent, fine. But when we need to know the guy's pfr, just tell us his pfr and supplement this read with specific information about his play like what he has check/raised you with in the past.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats because that statement is relative, it means different things to different people. 24/6 is a MUCH better statement as it is quantitave.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will have to agree with Naphand here. There is way too much emphasis on stats around here, and I'm not going to encourage it. Everything necessary was contained in the qualitative statement.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Then youll prolly be spending alot of time having to explain all your relative statements everytime you post a hand.

This isnt a "omg, you are all slaves to stats" issue...its giving the readers a better idea of whats going on. Stats exist for a reason, there is far to much "omg, stats are stupid" rhetoric going on on this board

[naphand]

Scotch78 has not merely translated the PT stats and made them wordy, for fox sake. The whole point about the PT stats argument versus table-reads is that this is exactly what people are trying to do. If the sample size is large enough, then confidence intervals are not needed, but for your typical noob "37 hands against villain V$IP 37.86%" confidence intervals are critical as we are dealing with partial information and ranges of hands. The wider the PT stat confidence interval the more you have widen your estimate of his potential hands. To do otherwise is bad thinking, bad poker, no debate.

Scotch78 here is clearly attempting to combine his table-reads with the stats he has from PT, which is clearly the correct thing to do. This, after all, is the read that Scotch78 has, not yours or anyone else's. He is trying to convey the player-type he is up against and the kind of plays he has seen. People have commented here that Scotch78 did not include all the read, well they are right. But to then argue that he should just post the stats to, presumably, allow others "to decide" is frankly laughable. The whole point of posting table-reads is to avoid posters making their own interpretations based on raw-data figures which provide only minimal information as to what card types villain plays and how.

Would you rather sit at a table against a player who has 100 hands and stats of V$IP 37, PFR 6 (esp. when those figures come without a confidence interval and may vary +/-5; I know my figures vary by at least this much from 100 hand sample to next) or would you rather know that your villain raises any PP and any A from UTG? Who is going to be easier to play against in this spot? The math of determining the best line is going to be a lot more solvable in the latter case, and leaves room for discussion of strategy. Posts that contain skeletal PT stats and no reads, almost inevitably provide little useful information on play bar the standard line. If you want to learn to play human beings, squeeze out additional EV, and make more $$ you need to recognise that considerable variety exists among players with near-identical stats, and we are not just talking post-flop either. The best and most useful posts/threads come from hands played against human beings with identifiable habits/behaviours, as there is actually something to discuss. Good poker players take advantage of habits/flaws in other players' game (and this is never more obvious than Heads-up), and while that is not necessary against chooks it is never a disadvantage to observe, think and react accordingly.

Scotch78, try to provide a few more observation on players in your reads, such as the information you gave later in the thread (after the intial post), it does help a lot. Also, your own (perceived) table-image is an important consideration (as Schneids remarked elsewhere). PT numbers are ok only if you think they are reliable (even better with confidence limits, though we have not dealt with that fully on the forum yet) but always coloured by table-reads, they are the most important as you point out.

If people want a meaningful discussion beyond ABC poker, then it is time to go beyond PT (note I did not say abandon it, though some certainly are beginning to advocate this in-play).

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Scotch78, try to provide a few more observation on players in your reads, such as the information you gave later in the thread

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, you've been hounding me about this since day one and it seems I'll never meet your standards, mom /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Scott

[TMFS9]

I like the call the turn raise the river line with this hand.

[Alobar]

Im confused, half that post sounds like you agree with what I said, the other half sounds like you hate it.

I never said scotch should have just put "24/6" and then posted the hand. But to make statements like "hes sorta tight, but not really" is about as worthless as someone who pots "ive got 12 hands on the guy and hes 33/10". Obviously I'm onto something here because I wasnt the only one who thought the info was lacking.

All im saying is that if he had provided more info (info he had) he wouldnt have gone back and had to correct replies and add things. Leaving out solid PT stats isnt helping anyone. cuz statements like "hes kinda tight" but with a solid PFR number onthe end, can allow me to extrapolate the likely hood of him raising hands like KTs and ATs are......because the word "tight" doesnt do that for me. I consider myself tight, and those are auto raises.

[naphand]

So who was it that posted this?

[ QUOTE ]
24/6 is a MUCH better statement as it is quantitave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is worse as you are saying it is a BETTER read, and you do not even know how many hands...ROFL

Scotch was trying to encourage people to think about what villain had from a general perspective based on observed play, and stated (albeit later) that his PT hands were &lt;100 and consequently "unreliable". His reason why he did not post them is a valid one, though some figs to back up table-reads can be helpful esp. with confidence intervals or at least some indication of how approximate they are. I think once you start to reach 8-10 rounds against a player the stats and table-reads should start to coalesce or compliment each other to some degree, a bit like a "paint by numbers" book (i.e. you need numbers AND crayons).At least until you can learn to draw yourself...

I do not have to either agree totally or disagree totally with any poster, it does not have to be raise or fold on this forum.... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[naphand]

Oh I wish...

[ QUOTE ]
TABLE CONDITIONS: Players are overall quite loose (V$IP typically mid-30s), there is a lot of trickiness about. Player to my right is loose, aggressive and tricky but his trickiness is not particularly inventive and I am getting a handle on him (e.g. limps 1st-in on SB with AK and 3-bets a raise, or raises and checks AAx flop etc.). To my left are two quite loose and generally passive players, who will bluff in a few spots, but probably are just quite bad. I do not feel quite on my A1 game, but that may be due to the slightly tougher spots I am finding myself in (and the horrible run I am getting on PokerRoom at the same time). This is a fun table, and good for trying out some ideas/tricks IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

versus

[ QUOTE ]
UTG here is on the tight-passive side, but not a true rock.

[/ QUOTE ]

No comparison, and I still get people saying I did not give all the info....

And as for your Mom, I think I met her working in the local Mall. She was selling ice-cream but ther were no flavours on the boxes, so she just described them as "stripy red", "green", "brown with bits" and so on. She said people should be able to work out what they taste like from that.

PS
Does she always wear that clubbing outfit in the daytime? I'm not sure it was helping sales any..... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
And as for your Mom, I think I met her working in the local Mall. She was selling ice-cream but ther were no flavours on the boxes, so she just described them as "stripy red", "green", "brown with bits" and so on. She said people should be able to work out what they taste like from that.

PS
Does she always wear that clubbing outfit in the daytime? I'm not sure it was helping sales any.....

[/ QUOTE ]

That's your funniest post in months, glad you found your A-game.

Scott

PS I had 650 hands on the player. The "&lt;100" was a reference to what kind of stats I consider a read.

[Alobar]

heh, im not going to get in an argument with you, where my only weapon is the ability to use words, and to group them together into logical statements....cuz I will lose.....badly /images/graemlins/smile.gif

but..

[ QUOTE ]
So who was it that posted this?

[ QUOTE ]
24/6 is a MUCH better statement as it is quantitave.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If you give me the choice between some nondescript statement like the orginal read was "sorta tight, kinda, uhm...maybe a little...not really I suppose" and "24/6 after 600 hands" (He said it was after 600 hands, or at least I thought he did, maybe I read that wrong) then im taking the 24/6 E V E R Y single time.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]


And as for your Mom, I think I met her working in the local Mall. She was selling ice-cream but ther were no flavours on the boxes, so she just described them as "stripy red", "green", "brown with bits" and so on. She said people should be able to work out what they taste like from that.

PS
Does she always wear that clubbing outfit in the daytime? I'm not sure it was helping sales any..... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

well at least we now know that being "wordy" doesnt translate into being "funny" /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[naphand]

Quantitative?

What the hell use is that? The only quantities that are useful are hours put in and chips won, card selection is about QUALITY, and PT numbers only give you an indication of that. If you want to play quantitative poker that's up to you, I have made this point elsewhere, I will stick to quality any time.

Frankly, I think it is better that Scotch posted a table read, as a relief from the endless "Opponent is 46/12" excuses. This was not the greatest of table reads and I sympathise with those who are lost without their little PT icons, in this case... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I was not offering people choices, I was waving the banner of "table power".

[naphand]

Not only did I think this was funny (and it is mostly for my own amusement) but the targetted poster also seems to have enjoyed it. Who cares what you think? Now watch this drive....

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
Quantitative?

What the hell use is that? The only quantities that are useful are hours put in and chips won, card selection is about QUALITY, and PT numbers only give you an indication of that. If you want to play quantitative poker that's up to you, I have made this point elsewhere, I will stick to quality any time.

Frankly, I think it is better that Scotch posted a table read, as a relief from the endless "Opponent is 46/12" excuses. This was not the greatest of table reads and I sympathise with those who are lost without their little PT icons, in this case... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I was not offering people choices, I was waving the banner of "table power".

[/ QUOTE ]

Im sorry you are having difficulties grasping what the problems associated with using relative terms are as compared with using data that has a little more foundation and is less likely to be misinterpreted.

As for the other post, guess it went over my head or something (what is it, like a movie quote?), just seemed like some lame way at throwing in a "your mom" joke. Next time you want to address something at a targeted poster, you might try replying to them instead of to me. Unless I am the butt of some joke I dont get, in which case it goes back to the "incredibly lame" catagory that I first took it to be in.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
just seemed like some lame way at throwing in a "your mom" joke. Next time you want to address something at a targeted poster, you might try replying to them instead of to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was responding to me, and it wasn't a random joke. I had called him "mom" for continually nagging about my reads.

Scott

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just seemed like some lame way at throwing in a "your mom" joke. Next time you want to address something at a targeted poster, you might try replying to them instead of to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was responding to me, and it wasn't a random joke. I had called him "mom" for continually nagging about my reads.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, I went back and looked and wasnt even a response to me. I would have sworn in a court of law that when I first read it, it was replied to me.

obviously I'm a huge fu[/i]cktard on this particular issue...my apologies all around

[naphand]

Well, we all make mistakes and mis-read

[ QUOTE ]
you do not even know how many hands...

[/ QUOTE ]

Arf. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

On the other hand, you still do not appear to understand what PT figures are about:

[ QUOTE ]
using relative terms...compared with...data that has a little more foundation and is less likely to be misinterpreted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just exactly how is a read like "raises any Ace or pair UTG" likely to be harder to interpret than 24/6? Table reads are superior for determining anything greater than ABC play (where you treat players according to generic "type", with no individual traits).

I did not say the (initial) information provided by Scotch was very good, but to claim that you can read a players cards AND post-flop play from 24/6 is the thinking of a twisted mind. While PF numbers give you a likely interpretation of his PF range, you cannot tell what his selection criteria are. Players will play certain types of cards, often from any position, before they develop any kind of logical strength/position based play. You do not know from 24/6 how villain plays from each position, you do not know what cards he raises with (he might raise all suited Aces, or any pair, or any 2 paint etc.) you simply do not know his selection criteria and are guessing, albeit with some very limited information. Table reads will quickly paint a picture of what a player chooses to raise with, cold-call with, his positional awareness, his post-flop play etc. The 24 is probably 24 +/-6 the 6 +/-2 but still tells us nothing about his positional play; does he limp AA/KK UTG or any position?, that won't show up in the PFR figures will it? So your read is immediately flawed.

This player is ACTUALLY typically 20-30% V$IP, perhaps a little tighter, which gives us a range of hands to go on based on what this should correctly represent. The trouble is, his 6% PFR is a clear indication that the cards he plays are not being correctly represented. How does he play suiteds? How does he play pairs? How does he play big pairs? How does he play big Aces? How about the number of limpers etc.?

A read of "tight passive" is pretty much exactly the same as 24/6, because 24/6 DOES NOT EXIST as a a discrete entity. You may look at PT and see 24/6 but if you believe that is what you are seeing you are deluded. 600 hands basically is like adding some gelatine to water, you get an idea of the form but it is too wobbly to pin down. All you are left with is an approximate form based on those numbers (NOT the numbers).

A read of tight passive in my mind would automatically put a player 20-30ish and PFR around 4-8. That's how I see it, and for the purposes of this hand that read "tight/passive" is as good as 24/06, for the reasons given. You choose to ignore the inherent unreliability of using PT PF figures, that those figures are likely to vary within a broader band of numbers (such as the 20-30 mentioned, because this could be the bottom end of 24-30, or top end of 18-24, all of which I see across my own sessions of 500-600 hands every day). The fact is, even a player with a very consistent V$IP (like myself 23% over 60K hands) will see variation in a given session from 18-28 easily. What does this mean? It means you cannot be anywhere near as precise as you are pretending you can. I also doubt that you have quantified the different hand ranges represented by 24% and 28%, and it would be pointless anyway if you are using PT reads over 600 hands as that kind of variation would be completely normal and using the 24 figure would lead you to incorrectly put too tight a banding on his potential holdings.

Verbal descriptions of player tendencies are just as valid as numerical once from PT, as long as you understand what they imply. Of course, for people who do not understand that the PT figures they are looking at are only a snapshot from within a range the possibility of misinterpretation is GREATER. The verbal description MORE ACCURATELY reflects the variability in such a limited read (600 hands). 24/6 is not 24/6 over a 600 hand sample in any practical sense, but certainly it is in the minds of those yet to come to terms with probability and natural variation.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
using relative terms...compared with...data that has a little more foundation and is less likely to be misinterpreted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just exactly how is a read like "raises any Ace or pair UTG" likely to be harder to interpret than 24/6?

[/ QUOTE ]

That isnt a relative statement, and isnt anything close at all to what the OP gave as a read. This statement IS better than saying 24/6, I would never claim otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]

A read of "tight passive" is pretty much exactly the same as 24/6, because 24/6 DOES NOT EXIST as a a discrete entity. You may look at PT and see 24/6 but if you believe that is what you are seeing you are deluded. 600 hands basically is like adding some gelatine to water, you get an idea of the form but it is too wobbly to pin down. All you are left with is an approximate form based on those numbers (NOT the numbers).

A read of tight passive in my mind would automatically put a player 20-30ish and PFR around 4-8. That's how I see it, and for the purposes of this hand that read "tight/passive" is as good as 24/06, for the reasons given.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, thats what im talking about, to me it doesnt mean that. That kind of read to me is as pointless as someone who gives "24/6 after 30 hands" type reads. I've never calimed that "24/6 after 600 hands" is a good read, Im merely stating that its a better read than "hes kinda tight". I am well aware of the issues that surround PT numbers, its merely a screen shot of their actions over a given perioud of time. Ive never even come close to saying that its some magical formula and I have the corresponding chart to look up his moves on (heh, how cool would that be). All I've ever stated is that I think "24/6 after 600 hands" is a much better read than "hes fairly tight, but not rockish". And my whole argument starteed because I think it is counter productive to leave out a decently solid stats read with ure post, just because you think people are too reliant on stats.

[naphand]

We agree that Scotch78's "read" was lacking, no doubt about that. But saying 24/6 is "better" (which it really isn't), even if you personally understand what the PT numbers imply, is a lazy habit and EASILY misinterpreted by the hoi-polloi reading such posts, who then go on to parrot the language they see, without the necessary understanding of its implications. This was my point about misinterpretation of PT stats, which is a plague on the forum. It may be "easier" to write 24/6 after X hands, but it is also easy to lumnp all opponents into groups and play them all the same way (by group). That works too, to a degree, to a limit.

Better players and better/regular posters should be stretching themselves to think beyond PT numbers, assuming they have ambitions to be more than mediocrities. I don't have the impression that Scotch78 wants to be a medicore player, and I think you know this also. Where posters want ABC responses to bot-like opponents and strive for an easy life, fine. When I see a poster who is trying to think more deeply about the game, I consider it a crime against ice-cream (?) not to relentlessly dissect reads, play and thinking, not least because it also helps keep me sharp.