A question to the mechanical SNGer

[NYCNative]

From what I have read here, regular OTT players win by being very mechanical. This makes sense when you're playing several tables at a time. Mathematically sound play will win more often than it loses.

That said, the beauty of poker is that it's not all about math, it's about playing the people.

Pro players and B&M players will tell you to mix up your play, which is good advice when you're playing at one table with the same people for hours at a time or they are people you play with often, but neither situation is common on internet SNGs.

As such, how often do you go against your "standard" actions because of reads? How successful have you been when you have attempted to do this?

[treeofwisdom7]

i think this is a serious question.





IT DOESNT MATTER IF YOUR BLACK OR WHITE

[lorinda]

That said, the beauty of poker is that it's not all about math, it's about playing the people.

It's all math, some of the math is just not the math you think it is.

Lori

[Degen]

hard to make reads when in 4+ tables at once

IMO a straght forward approach is all that is needed to get the money at the 33's and below...beginning at the 55's there is a need to be conscious of your image due to the fact that you will be seeing a lot of the same people.


Andre

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, the beauty of poker is that it's not all about math, it's about playing the people.

It's all math, some of the math is just not the math you think it is.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Enough meat here for an article in the magazine?

GG

[NYCNative]

You're being presumptuous, with all due respect. You'e saying that you make decisions based on mathematical propabilities while also taking reads into account, which is understood.

I am talking about situations where you disregard the math because of a read exclusively. For example, there are situations where pushing 72o make mathematical sense. There are situations where it won't but you do it anyway because of...

Maybe it would help if I gave you some background on what prompted the question. I watch the poker players on TV and I wondered to myself, "Self, could Gus Hansen use his style and make money at SNGs?"

Yes, I realize that his style is exacerbated through a small sample size of hands that make TV. However I am also aware that pro poker players will often make moves that are completely read-related that make no sense. Pure bluffs. Obvious "fold preflop" plays that instead were key in winning a tournament for someone.

Does this kind of play that is heavily dependent on reads and post-flop skills counterproductive to money-making SNG play? If not, how often can one make those kinds of moves and expect them to work?

[lorinda]

All a read is is something that alters the math.

If there is a 57% chance my opponent has AA but that goes up to a 94% chance when he starts to shake and whispers "Do not shake" under his breath, it's still math.

Most reads are also made based on betting patterns rather than someone screaming "I don't have aces" when they have aces, or their eye starting to twitch.

There are reads made based upon body language, but even the Gus Hansens make their reads based on all available data, and the vast majority of that data is previous betting history.

The answer is yes, they would still win. However, the people you are referring to would have a higher ROI in live games than online as online would remove some of their 'bonus' ROI.

Lori

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this kind of play that is heavily dependent on reads and post-flop skills counterproductive to money-making SNG play? If not, how often can one make those kinds of moves and expect them to work?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is highly dependant on an each individual situation. In regards to how often these kinds of moves can be played off and be expect to work also depends on the situation but it can easily happen that you may have a ITM finish in a SNG and find that you are not in a hand situation were a pure bluff makes sense, regardless of opponent reads.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]

That said, the beauty of poker is that it's not all about math, it's about playing the people.


[/ QUOTE ]

Also a quote like this one said on 2+2 is like playing with fire. This is like committing 2+2 treason.


just joking...sort of...

[Pepsquad]

[ QUOTE ]
hard to make reads when in 4+ tables at once

IMO a straght forward approach is all that is needed to get the money at the 33's and below...beginning at the 55's there is a need to be conscious of your image due to the fact that you will be seeing a lot of the same people.


Andre

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. At the lower buy-in's people make such consistantly poor mathamatical decisions that deviation from "mechanical" play (on all but the most rock-solid of reads) becomes -EV. The problem with playing the player at the lower limits is that even my opponent doesn't know exactly how he'll proceed from one moment to the next.

Also, Lorinda made a great point. What we often refer to as "playing the player" really is just suble alterations in percentages.

[Moonsugar]

This is very interesting topic and leads to what I think the #1 skill is in success at SnGs:

Your ability to accurately gauge your opponents raising/calling standards at a particular point in time.

Everything else can be memorized.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
This is very interesting topic and leads to what I think the #1 skill is in success at SnGs:

Your ability to accurately gauge your opponents raising/calling standards at a particular point in time.

Everything else can be memorized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. This is a hugely important SnG skill.

[MrX]

[ QUOTE ]


The problem with playing the player at the lower limits is that even my opponent doesn't know exactly how he'll proceed from one moment to the next.


[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
I am talking about situations where you disregard the math because of a read exclusively.

[/ QUOTE ]

The #1 mistake of an SnGer: Playing marginal hands because of a "read" on an opponent.

I will play marginal hands because of stack size, position, blinds, blinds about to go up, etc.

For a typical opponent in a typical SnG, I have seen maybe one or two hands which went to showdown. One or two hands is not enough to get a semi-accurate read on somebody.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, the beauty of poker is that it's not all about math, it's about playing the people.

It's all math, some of the math is just not the math you think it is.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

And if you play like Lorinda....your 'math' starts to resemble true art.

Yugoslav

[yvesaint]

How about you, NYCNative, and your "unorthodox" and "read-based" moves? How often do you do those, and find out you've failed completely with them? How often are your reads completely wrong?

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
All a read is is something that alters the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All a read is is something that alters the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[/ QUOTE ]

as is "mixing up your play."

all these things have a very mathematical side to them. in sng play i think it is less get-away-with-able to not be able to think about things in a deeper mathematical bent, because of the structure of the game. while the mathematical is important in all cash games as well, tournament structure throws another layer on top of all those concepts.

citanul

[pokerlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This is very interesting topic and leads to what I think the #1 skill is in success at SnGs:

Your ability to accurately gauge your opponents raising/calling standards at a particular point in time.


[/ QUOTE ]

For example, why would you push (or raise with) substandard hands from CO or button? when your opponents in SB and BB have shown to be especially tight, thereby increasing the odds you will steal their blinds or be able to bluff them on certain flops.

Why might you call an all in raise on L2 with AQ? when you have seen the raiser showdown all in previously with A7, 22, and KJ - the odds you are ahead increase.

I try to take these types of decisions into account on every buy-in and in every game I play, whether I am 4 tabling or single tabling.

[New York Jet]

You mentioned Gus Hansen...here is what he has to say about reads vs. math.
(See the full article at Card Player (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14525&m_id=65555))


“I am definitely more aggressive than most players, but I also have a different philosophy about my game. My outlook is a little more from a mathematical perspective. Other players rely too much on their instincts and reading abilities. Sometimes they allow that to overshadow the mathematical truth. Usually, I let the math do its thing. Sometimes, people put too much into their reads, and ante off all of their chips and then suddenly have no chips at all."

So to answer your questions:
[ QUOTE ]
could Gus Hansen use his style and make money at SNGs?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, a mathematical style works great!!!

[ QUOTE ]
Does this kind of play that is heavily dependent on reads and post-flop skills counterproductive to money-making SNG play?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. It is also counterproductive to money-making in all other forms of poker, IMO.

[The once and future king]

As a semi mechanical player (I only play 4 tables) I am still able to make reads.

Players are of two basic types.

1. They either raise to much (To aggresive)
2. They fold/limp to much. (To passive)

Anyone half decent stands out like a vicar in a brothel.

Even multitabling once one has got down to 5 or so players one can identify these types and take advantage acordinigly.