[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now you've given off the image of an uber-calling-moron...


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the entire point of how Josh tabled his hand was to convey the exact opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know. That's the point I'm trying to make. I wonder if "this guy is an idiot calling station" is more profitable than "this guy can really play". After all, "this guy can really play" is an accurate image, while "this guy sucks" is totally wrong. Wouldn't we want our image to be different than the way we actually play? If our opponents think one way and we play another, we may create some profitable opportunities.

-Eric

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not what they think that's important, it's how they play.

If they think "wow, he's really good", that means nothing. If it leads my opponent to then think "I need to play perfectly to win", and he goes out and does it, obviously that was a bad image to convey to him, as it elevated his game.

However, if his initial thought is followed up with "I don't wanna play any pots with him", then it's a profitable image to convey.

Conversely, if they think "wow, he's an uber-calling station", and it leads them to make very thin value bets on the river (with all ace highs, maybe some king highs, etc), then I'll be put in a tricky spot, because I'll have to start making marginal river calls. however if it makes them think "I shoulnd't bet unless i have a really good hand, cuz he's gonna call everything", then it's helpful for me to have this image.

Succinctly, it's not the image you portray that matters. It's what your image makes your opponents do that matters.

Josh