Studying a Particular Opponent (long/strategy)

Argus · #1 11-01-2005, 07:26 AM

I'm posting this in HUSH because it's the forum I participate in most actively, and I think that shorthanded players have the most to benefit from these ideas.

I've started to notice at 10/20 more than at previous levels that I keep running into the same multi-tabling TAGs. I play mostly on Empire, but I'm sure this is relevant to any other of the smaller sites, and probably even at Party (I don't know how many 10/20 games run there). Some of them I definitely suspect of being 2+2, but others make noticeable errors both pre and post flop.

What are the best ways to keep track of these? I make player notes: I note unusual plays, and if a pattern emerges I will describe it briefly for myself. Then if I see a situation where an opponent has misplayed before, I will adjust my play to exploit their error. Although this example was against a weaker player (around 35/20/1.3), I noticed by making a legitimate calldown that this player would always bluff the river when checked to if he had nothing. By always check/calling unimproved high-cards, and check/raising stronger hands I was able to extract an extra BB four times in our session together.

This is a drastic result, but the result of a fairly drastic error by the villain. While I don't expect to always find errors of this magnitude, it opened my eyes to the idea that they were certainly worth watching for. If anyone else has tried keeping track of leaks in (at least marginally) thinking players' games, I'd be interested to hear what other methods you have used. I intend to try studying a body of hands I have played (or possibly datamined) against a certain player I suspect is making some recurring post flop mistakes. I'm not sure if it would ever be worthwhile to try to find seats with this player on your left; I usually try to sit with loose and passive players to my right, and am uncertain whether sitting with a TAG (even one who makes mistakes) would be more profitable than this position. However I could certainly see it being a deciding factor when choosing between 2 tables.

Given the amount of work these strategies can take, do most players here consider it a wise investment of their time? Or is it just too little of a gain for the amount of work it takes? I'm including my sample analysis of a player I think could give a lot of action, though I haven't played against him since making this analysis.

I was both puzzled and impressed with this player's play. He is definitely a knowledgeable player, though he revealed in chat that he was not a fan of the 2+2 forums. His stats are around 30/22/1.94 over 8.5k hands, and his winrate and play over this period leads me to believe he's a winner in this game (though almost certainly running hot). I have seen him make some questionable calldowns, however they seem to be mostly against more passive players (whose bets aren't worth calling with what he has to showdown). In 760 hands together, I've won money from him 111 times, and he's won money from me 85 times. I'm up by $32 in these hands - although I've felt that he's outplayed me over this period.

I looked over about 200 of hands (some from a 3-handed session, and some from a 5-handed one), paying particularly attention to hands we played together and hands he showed down (I thought I had the most to learn from there). I noticed a few trends - with his weak hands, he becomes passive but goes to showdown. He called KQ unimproved after checking the turn behind and I bluffed into him on a T3J76 board getting 5:1. However he has often semi-bluffed and bluffed the turn. He plays his draws fast, and I've seen him wait until the turn to raise flush-draw + overs twice. Twice I 3-bet his turn raise only to see him fold. I've also noticed that he doesn't defend his BB often enough - I hypothesise it's because he's too busy multitabling.

Because of his tendencies I will never sit at a table when he will have position on me for most of the hands. His style encourages marginal calldowns and fastplaying medium strength hands; something I'd rather do with position. If this comes up as a temporary situation I intend to play my hands very fast, but wait for solid hands. Nearly any pocket pair will see a showdown against him, and I'll slightly fit or fold approach (keeping in mind that a good ace is fit). When playing with position on him I will starting using the free card play more often. This will have the double benefit of stopping his semi-bluff turn bets, and letting me show moderate strength hands more often. Here's a hand where I should definitely have 3-bet the turn instead. (Instead I mailed villain a 1.7BB cheque.)

Party Poker 10/20 Hold'em (6 max, 5 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is SB with T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
UTG calls, MP (Villain) raises, 1 fold, Hero 3-bets, 1 fold, UTG calls, MP (Villain)/ calls.

Flop: (10 SB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (3 players)
Hero bets, UTG folds, Villain calls.

Turn: (6 BB) 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets, Villain raises, Hero calls.

River: (10 BB) K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets, Villain raises, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 14 BB

Results:
Hero has Td Ts (two pair, tens and twos).
Villain has Ks Js (two pair, kings and twos).
Outcome: Villain wins 14 BB.

I don't know how often I'll get an opportunity to be more aggressive against him on the turn compared to the average TAG, but I think knowing to do this will certainly gain me some bets in the future when he either folds a semi-bluff that would have beaten me on the river, or when he calls down with a hand that doesn't warrant it.

I hope these ideas are helpful - especially to those trying to move up. I'm interested to hear about any similar analyses anyone has done, whether they are simple as using player notes to supplement reads, or a more detailed analysis of the villain's play like I did, or something else entirely.