Image

OK....

You sit down at a 10/20 6 max table and post into KK in the BB. You get 3 way action all the way out and win a decent pot. Next hand you get AA in the SB and flop a set 4 ways. You win a bigger pot. Next hand you raise T9o from the button, and you take the blinds without showing. Your image is great right now; you're up $350, you haven't shown a loser, you have people stuck, they want it back from you, and don't know how to beat you because you've only showed winners.

NOW.....

You open another 10/20 6 max game and sit. BB has 75h waiting for you. Button open raises and you defend. Flop comes T-5-2 rainbow. You play the hand out and lose to JJ. SB comes, you raise and bet the whole way out with AK heads up. Neither of you improve and you lose to 33. On the button you get 86c. You raise and after BB defends you fire 2 barrels with a flopped gut shot and miss. Check, check on the river, you show 8 high, he shows king high. You're stuck $180, but your image is great. You have put tons of bets in, went to every river, and everyone sees your hands, none of which were better than a pair of 5s with a 7 kicker.


At which table is your image better? What does it mean when someone says, "I have a great image at this table right now."?

[MrBig30]

Obviously IMO on table 1 your image is better. Always good to be able to pick up pots when nobody hits, your bluff works better, you can steal blinds etc.

On table 2 people will call you down more which is good only when you have good cards + people generally do that too much anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously IMO on table 1 your image is better. Always good to be able to pick up pots when nobody hits, your bluff works better, you can steal blinds etc.

On table 2 people will call you down more which is good only when you have good cards + people generally do that too much anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you personally like it better when people think you're a solid player? That's good.

This topic is very opinionated, and I'm not going to sway the argument either way. Just want to hear some thoughts on it before I give my opinion.

[Nietzsche]

I don't understand what you mean by "Your image is great" for table 2. Obviously you need to use whatever image you currently have to your advantage and there are advantages to having a sucky image but the problem is you really need to catch some cards to exploit this image. Easier to not having to catch and still take down pots IMO, which you may be able to on table 1.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what you mean by "Your image is great" for table 2. Obviously you need to use whatever image you currently have to your advantage and there are advantages to having a sucky image but the problem is you really need to catch some cards to exploit this image. Easier to not having to catch and still take down pots IMO, which you may be able to on table 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post.

Yes, table 1 has you in a great spot. You are correct in saying that you can juggle more situations around to your favor. You will be winning smaller pots, but more of them.

As far as table 2 goes, having a loose image is something very desirable in poker. Being aggressive and bet/raising with a quick mouse accomplishes this without having to play loose. The fact that you have to hit hands will be offset tremendously from the action you get when you do hit as well as the times when people pay off your standard hands with sub-standard hands.

Table 1 image is easier to play and is very profitable.
Table 2 image is harder to play and can be more profitable. There's a trade-off, and that's where this topic's discussion comes in.

[admiralfluff]

Developing an "image" increases your expectation by encouraging opponents to make mistakes they would not make against an unknown player. Either a tight or loose image can make a session more profitable. The deciding factors regarding which image is more profitable are the tendencies of your opponents.

OK. So you don't prefer one of the situations over the other?

[ QUOTE ]
Developing an "image" increases your expectation by encouraging opponents to make mistakes they would not make against an unknown player.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is very well put.

I'm personally of the opinion that having a "solid image" is overrated. Often, what looks like opponents' mistakes when your image is solid turn out to just be lack of cards or good boards for their hands. It's a little optimistic to think that your opponents are thinking "Hmm, this guy's been winning every hand. I better muck my top pair before he steamrolls through me yet again."

When people play tight against a good player, they're generally playing pretty well; the sizes of their mistakes aren't big.

I believe that your opponents' larger mistakes come from them loosening up against you. And that will happen because you have a loose/aggressive image.

One caveat to the above. I think that as you reduce the number of players in the hand, the above statements become less true. One reason why a solid image doesn't work that well towards stealing lots of pots is that you have 5 opponents to keep you honest. In a heads up match, I believe the strong image gains a lot of value, and I would be hesitant to say which image would be "better" against most opponents in that case.

-vkh