[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My read came from watching him for an hour. Jason's read came from playing with him for an hour and having 2300 hands on him. He had never played with him before. I had no stats but had watched him make a few raises, usually after the limper, and he had played some of those hands quite aggressively (one appeared to be a flush draw that he played quite aggressively after raising preflop, being 3-bet by the SB, calling, then raising after the limper folded on a two rag (372) two club board).

I felt that given what I had seen, he seemed very capable of raising to isolate and playing aggressively. For all I know he could have been getting good cards, etc., but reads are reads.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem with that statement, which I don't feel has been adequately addressed yet, is that a guy who is very capable of raising to isolate should have a pfr > 8%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't he be playing slightly different on this particular session? I see this in the cardroom all the time. All of a sudden a loose passive is making a good, yet marginal, raises during a session. A raise that you're suprised that he's doing as he normally doesn't do it. Maybe he read a recent article in a magazine or something. It kind of supercedes any prior reads you've had from other sessions. So you adjust for it until they revert back to their normal way of playing that you're used to. I don't think that is just limited to live play. Btw...I saw alot of this when Hellmuths book came out. Normal passives were jamming lots of hands you'd never have thought they would. Eventually they reverted back to their weak ways, but that doesn't mean you play them the same way regardless.

This is one of the detriments of relying too much on stats. It can make you ignore subtle changes the player may be making for whatever reason during that session(s).

b