PDA

View Full Version : Reads aren’t important


10-21-2005, 01:03 PM
OK, I don’t necessarily think that, but I was trying to get you to open the post. But I do want to talk about reads.

So here’s the thing. For the last week since the Empire/Party split, I’ve been playing on UB. I’ve never had an account on UB, so I’m brand new there and obviously had zero notes on any of the players. I’ve been playing two full ring 50NL tables while getting used to the software (I normally play 100NL and 200NL). On Empire/Party, I almost always had notes on at least 2-3 people at the table when I sat down. I was always adding notes and refining them, etc. When in a marginal/tough situation I would often rely on my notes/reads to make the difficult decision.

At UB, I haven’t been using or making any notes (except for the rare cases of something completely obscene). Any time I had to make a difficult decision I simply took the betting, action, and cards on board for their face value. And by simply taking their bets at face value my results have been incredible and quite consistent. I’ve played 7 sessions and haven’t had a down session yet. In 18 hours of playing two 50NL, I’m up 8 buy-ins (not counting my bonus money). I know this is a small sample, variance, blah, blah, blah. I’ve been running pretty well, of course, but I’ve also taken a handful of terrible beats. This includes the worst two beats I’ve ever taken: getting it all-in on the flop with the nut flush to lose to a runner runner straight flush; and getting all in on the flop with a boat, only to lose to runner runner quads (along with others). My point is simply that not everything has been a bed of roses. But I think that I’ve folded a lot of hands that were probably behind just by taking the betting patterns at face value. If I had been on Empire/Party with all kinds of notes, I could easily see myself calling because of my “read.” In other words, maybe my reads have been talking me into to calling with the worst hand. I called with the best hand plenty of times but maybe I talked myself into calling with the worst hand enough to cancel them out or even be –EV (which is my hunch).

So here’s my question: How important do you think reads really are? Would we just be better off taking things at face value (with the exception of total maniacs)? Do we overrate our “reads”? I’m starting to think that maybe reads are overvalued. Or at least playing without reads the last week has worked very well for me so far. (I think it also keeps me from trying to get too tricky, which is normally -EV.)

kurto
10-21-2005, 02:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And by simply taking their bets at face value my results have been incredible and quite consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

First: That is a read. Since most players are pretty straightforward, examining the betting patterns and the cards is making a read.

Second: The above alone accounts for straightforward players. Are you telling me it won't help your game immensely if you know whether or not a player bets vs calls his draws? Calling station vs tight? Rock vs LAG? Does a person play any Ace from any position?

If you have an A10 and the board is A 4 6.... with no read, how much of your stack do you risk with A10?

"How important do you think reads really are?" Incredibly important.

"Would we just be better off taking things at face value (with the exception of total maniacs)?" No. People besides total maniacs bluff, semi-bluff, bet/call with different strength hands, continuation bets with someone or complete air, etc. "Face value works" with relatively passive ABC players. It doesn't work when you have a mixture of calling stations, rocks, LAGs, SLAPS and tricky players.

"Do we overrate our “reads”?" Depends how good your reads are.

Hoopster81
10-21-2005, 02:16 PM
Are you talking about not using Poker Tracker?

4_2_it
10-21-2005, 02:16 PM
I think you are playing optimal ABC poker at the $50 level. when I was at the $25 and $50 levels, I rarely made notes or paid attention to villains, I focused and played my cards and ABC poker. It was easy to be a long term winner.

As you know, players are a little trickier at NL $200 and straight ABC playing is not as effective with the villains at the NL $200 level. At the higher levels villains have a better understanding of the game and, unlike $50 and $25 players, can get away from unimproved AA and TPTK.

JustToast
10-21-2005, 02:33 PM
I completely agree that you can take the fishy players at face value.

Stick one or two 2+2ers in a table with you, and the landscape changes.

Meh, overall I think that's the easy way to make money at these tables but better players will start taking notes on you and representing hands they do not have. Not only do you have to pay attention to the players, you need to pay attention to which players are paying attention to you.

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

FreakDaddy
10-21-2005, 02:39 PM
They're only improtant if you want to win at a high rate. You've had some successful variance within a short sample size. Good for you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif