|
|
#1
06-16-2005, 05:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
How are you arriving at \"tight, average & loose\" classifications?
[ QUOTE ]
Very game dependent. If you put them all on 'tight', it is a push with any two. If you put them all on 'average', it is 63% of hands and Q4o is borderline. If you put them on loose (which you need in order to get 44), only the top 11% of hands are good pushes. [/ QUOTE ] In the quote above from another thread, the discussion is related to stealing blinds on the bubble. I am curious to know the different ways and methods that work best for arriving at these categories. I try to pay a lot of attention to what players are raising & calling with, how many hands ther play, do they bet strong when weak & weak when strong etc. and I am sure this is a version of what many people do to find out what kind of players are at the table but it seems incomplete, kind of directionless. Any suggestions for would be appreciated. 
|
|
#4
06-16-2005, 06:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How are you arriving at \"tight, average & loose\" classifications?
When I'm multitabling, I tend to concentrate on the two players to my right, and the two players to my left. I gain a general feel for the table after a while, but it's much easier to form solid (though simple) reads on 4 players instead of 10.
The way I tend to judge things is by stack sizes. If I don't see someone's stack change much in 1-2 levels, it's reasonable to say that they're pretty tight. Granted this doesn't work every time, but it can be a general gauge of pushing/calling standards if you're working multiple tables. Also, are they pushing a lot? If they are, but aren't calling pushes much at all, they're probably pretty solid and is someone I can steal from. Are they pushing a lot and calling a ton of hands? If yes, then I stay away from them. Are they content to blind down doing nothing? Then I steal relentlessly with any two. If I'm single-tabling (rare), well, I don't really form reads, since I'm so bored I'm doing 2340984 other things besides playing poker. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] I dunno...maybe some players try to come up with the math behind this during the game. I just don't see how you'd do it though. I just keep things simple and general.
|
|
#6
06-16-2005, 06:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How are you arriving at \"tight, average & loose\" classifications?
[ QUOTE ]
some people use playerview and pokertracker to form reads. live updates are nice. glitchy though, so i dont use it. holla [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I used to do that. When PV expired and I didn't want to pay $50 for it, I just started doing things the old fashioned way. I'm finding my results to be better without PV, actually. I'm actually paying attention to my games now...
|
|
#7
06-16-2005, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How are you arriving at \"tight, average & loose\" classifications?
i have pokeroffice and like it more than any other software. the screen overlays are awesome. i think this is a must for any multi tabler. plus it tracks all history of anyone you ever played and displays any metrics and/or custom metrics that you can define and have overlayed on screen.
|
|
#8
06-16-2005, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How are you arriving at \"tight, average & loose\" classifications?
The best use reads all the time, but I find them too subjective..Just because a player calls with Q2o in early position first hand doesn't necessarily mean they'll be tight when the blinds matter. While i'm not disputing that reads are very helpful, I find my brainpower is better spent (albeit with a smaller ROI) 4 or 8 tabling with no reads than playing 1 table with reads.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
