More profitable for opps to think you're better or worse?

[Ulysses]

Every now and then someone will ask something like "which image is more profitable - tight or maniac?"

Haven't seen this spin on the question, though, and thought it might be interesting.

Is it more profitable for your opponents to think that you are a better player than them or a worse player?

Assuming you're winning, would you rather they think you're winning due to luck or skill?

Does your answer change based different limits?

[bernie]

worse, of course...

why would they give action to a 'better' player?

b

[Al Schoonmaker]

The answer to this question, as to so many other poker questions, is: "It depends on the situation."

Generally, you want them to underestimate you. However, there are significant advantages to having them overestimate you. You gain the intimidation factor, which will allow you to steal pots and cause them to check when they should bet, call when they should raise, and fold when they should call.

With weak players that intimidation factor is probably more valuable than the "get action" element you gain from their underestimating you. They are going to give you action anyway. What you want is the RIGHT KIND of action.

With strong players it is probably better to be underestimated.

However, even here we have an "it depends" element. The words "weak" and "strong" are too general. It really depends upon what kinds of weak and strong players you're facing.

Sorry to be so complicated, but poker is complicated.

Regards,

Al

[tiger]

I think the most profitable for you would be for them to think the exact opposite of what you are.

But the truth would come out after a while..

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Ulysses,
I think the answer is, "It depends on whether it's more profitable to knock them out, or trap them."

I've often read low-limit is a trapping game, high-limit is a knock out game.

I posted in another forum the question, "How do I know when I've crossed the line from trap-em to knock-em?"

No answers yet.

Seems it might revolve around pot size relative to "something"... since 2+2 authors have written, "When the pot gets large, do all you can to win it now!"

But "large" compared to what other metric?

Anyways...If you're Mike Caro... you want them to think you're a gambler... so's they throw extra bets at you.

Me personally, I'd rather have then get out when I raise... If they'll call a bet, but get out when I raise, then I can elicit the response I really want in any given situation right?

If I have a monster and want more bucks... play soft. If I have a marginal hand and don't want to be drawn out on... raise em out.

If they won't get out when I raise... I'm always stuck in the no-foldem situation, true?

So anyway, bottom line... if I'm in knock-em-out territory... I want to be over-estimated...if I'm in trap-em territory... I want to be underestimated.

Now... if I could figure out how to know which case I'm in at any given time!

Conversely... if the already over-estimate me... knock-em-out... if they underestimate me... play hands that thrive in the no-foldem scenario.

Thoughts?

Sincerely,
AA

[Ulysses]

Al,

Thanks for the response. Rather than complicated, I think that was just about as clear and concise as possible given such nebulous terms and concepts we're working with.

I posted this message because I've been finding that in my 6-12 games, it's easy to get action (it's often close to no fold'em), but when weak opponents think I'm a really strong player, I gain two advantages. I can successfully bluff a little more often and I can often see the river cheaply with draws.

On the other hand, I agree that in my tougher 15-30 games, it's often to my advantage to be thought of as a weaker player. It's so nice in those games to be 3-bet while holding the nuts because someone thinks they can outplay me. Then again, with super-aggressive players, it's good to be thought of as a little stronger, because I don't necessarily want them playing back against me every single time. As you said, it depends....

[Al Schoonmaker]

This thread has shown once again why we love this game. If the answers to questions were simple, the game wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

In addition, it could not be as profitable for serious players. We would all learn the formulas and apply them, wiping out the good players' edge.

The good guys win BECAUSE they have enogh judgment to go this way or that depending upon the situation.

So let's enjoy the complexity and confusing.

Al