The value of reads.... my proudest laydown (little brag post)

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Then why not push...

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he likes his hand. I knew I would get more in other streets. Since I'm only worried about 1 card, I didn't see any reason to give him any chance of folding to a reraise.

[DrPublo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then why not push...

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he likes his hand. I knew I would get more in other streets. Since I'm only worried about 1 card, I didn't see any reason to give him any chance of folding to a reraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you said yourself the villain is a weak tight nutpeddling nit. Those types of players wait all day to flop and set, and they'll never fold one. Not on an AT4 board anyway. Put it in and count your Sklansky bucks.

The Doc

First, let me say nice laydown. My following comments are meant in no way to be critical of your play. You had a bad feeling in your gut and went with it. I am the first one to advocate going with your gut. And the way the hand played out, I would have been scared of quads too. But I would never make a laydown like that online. I’m much more inclined to make plays based upon reads in live play, because obviously you get a much better feel for the players and the situation.

But I think you and everyone else that responded to my post on reads misinterpreted my comments. And probably I did a poor job of articulating my thoughts. As I explicitly said in my post, I didn’t think reads were unimportant (I just used that as the subject line for provocation). What I was trying to get at was that I think that maybe we get too carried away with our reads. But again, I wasn’t even saying this more than I was simply trying to get a discussion going on it. I feel like trying to put someone on two exact cards and then making a decision based upon that “read” is probably equivalent to fancy play syndrome. No less than Doyle Brunson says in SuperSystem that if your opponent has to have two exact cards to have you beat then you just have to pay him off because there are just too many times that he doesn’t have those two exact cards.

What I’ve been doing since playing at UB is to simplify my “reads.” I no longer try to figure out their exact hand or how they play every hand that could possibly happen, but simply have a general sense of how they play—whether they’re a maniac, loose, average, tight, brilliant, etc. I then make my decision based partly upon my general impression of my opponent, but I’m relying much more now on the betting of the hand, the board, and my hand’s relative strength (hand reading versus reading of my opponent, I suppose you could say). In other words, I’m trying to not get caught up in making huge reads (like you did to very good effect in your posted hand). I don’t know how many times I’ve called a guy when I had top two because I just knew they were overplaying their hand only to lose. Or how many times I called (when not playing my best game) even though I was 99% sure I was beat only to win. And I’ve also tried bluffing a guy who I was sure had an overpair and I was sure he was capable of laying it down on a very scary board only to get called down and lose to A-K unimproved.

I didn’t think about this at the time that I made my original post, but I now remember that Gus Hansen once talked about this, i.e. not getting too caught up in making incredible reads. I think it was in the CardPlayer issue that featured him. I think it was in the last six months. I can’t remember what he said exactly, but it was something to the effect that he thought some top pros got way too caught up in their great reads and that he plays more mathematically. If anyone finds it, please cut and paste it here if possible.

So I was in no way arguing that reads are not important, but rather that maybe we get too caught up on trying to make a great read rather than simply taking things at face value. I suspect that maybe I was too caught up in making reads and often thinking myself into a bad call or a bad fold rather than simply taking the hand and betting at face value. And even though you posted this explicitly with my earlier post in mind, frankly, I think the hand you posted is a perfect example of this “huge reads as fancy play syndrome” that I was trying to discuss. I think your play is a perfect example of getting too caught up in your reads. I don’t think anyone could reasonably argue that getting all your money in here is the wrong decision. To argue that calling here is incorrect would be entirely 100% results oriented—it seems to me at least. And again, I’m not criticizing your play, because I would be scared to death of quads too. But there are too many times that Villain would have A-K here and maybe even A-4, A-10, A-Q or a desperate bluff with QQ, JJ, or something. Those hands might have all seemed unlikely to you based upon your read and they do seem unlikely, but I think they happen enough to make calling the all-in with tens full the right decision—even if you do have what you think is an absolute certain read. Your hand was far different from having tens full on a board of K-K-Q-10-2—with this hand, a fold would probably be in order or at least worth considering depending on everything else. (I’ve never heard of the don’t fold a full house rule before.) I just think your hand is a good example of getting too caught up in your reads (again trying not to be results oriented).

I hope this is clearer than my other post, which was apparently a total disaster.

Here's the Gus Hansen quotation (vol 18, no 3 of CardPalyer):

“I am definitely more aggressive than most players, but I also have a different philosophy about my game. My outlook is a little more from a mathematical perspective. Other players rely too much on their instincts and reading abilities. Sometimes they allow that to overshadow the mathematical truth. Usually, I let the math do its thing. Sometimes, people put too much into their reads, and ante off all of their chips and then suddenly have no chips at all."

I think this is much clearer and more articulate that what I had said... Any thoughts?

[kurto]

First.. I don't think you're being overcritical. I actually expected a lot more people to take issue with my play.

But, as I said in the earlier post, I can count the number of times I've folded middle or bottom set on an uncoordinated board (this makes 2) in 3 years.

But there are players who you should be able to read like a book. I disagree that you can't feel 99% of someones holdings at certain times.

I remember a guy who bet EXACTLY the same way everytime (this was on Pokerstars $25 tables). I noticed this person kept raising 3 different amounts. Once it struck me, I observed a pattern, confirmed it, and then used it--
If he had ANY Ace or ANY king with a weak kicker, he raised to .50
If he had A10, AJ, KQ or a small pocket pair, he raised to .75.
If he had AK/AA/KK or QQ... he raised it to $1.

Similarly, the strength of his postflop betting told you how well he hit.

First, this guy was a ball to play with. Second, you could confidently call with ANY ace because you knew the range of his kicker based on his PF raise.

My point... the most important thing to beating this guy was the read. There was almost NO risk postflop. It was as if he was showing you his cards.

Back to the original hand I posted: The guy was a supertight ABC player. There was no mixing it up. There was no weird loose calls preflop. The board had no draws (this guy wouldn't bet draws anyways). He wouldn't have 2 pair on this board, he wouldn't 3 bet with just TPTK and he certainly wouldn't have gone all in on the turn with just a pair. If you're playing against a straightforward player, then there are certain hands/certain flops where 1 and only 1 hand makes sense.

Regarding your post in general... Very rarely do I think a read is putting someone on one specific hand; rathar a range of possible hands that a person will play a certain way. And its a skill that I think will increase anyone's playing ability and income greatly.

And yes, there will be times you will be wrong and lay down the best hand. But any good poker player is going to occasionally laydown the best hand. But to maximum your winnings, you have to be able to lay down the occasionally monster and know when to call with a weak hand. You can't do that without a read.

I hope this reads clearly. I'm at work between meetings and have to pound this out quickly.

[kurto]

They're both right. (Gus and the other players)

Ideally you combine both; math and the reads.

[TheWorstPlayer]

If you know he has the underset, just shove flop. He never folds it. And you want him to see you fastplay sets so that you can fastplay monster draws. I always play sets as fast as I possibly can without sacrificing mucho EV.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
If you know he has the underset, just shove flop. He never folds it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had been doing that all night. I had an awesome night with my pocket pairs hitting left and right on multiple tables. I hit a lot of sets. I had already busted 2 players at this table who played back at me on the flop by putting them all in and then busting them. In one case (at this table), I busted someone with set over set.

I was actually concerned he could put me on a higher set if I put him all in and he could fold.

More importantly... what's my rush? He's played back at me, I know what he's got and there's only one card in the deck I'm afraid of. I had no doubt I'd get his money in. its not like I was worried another 4 was going to fall. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]