Default read on new players?

[GrunchCan]

Sorry, here's a little more.

Generally I assume that an opponent's bets, checks and raises mean what they say. That is, I assume most opponents to be plain vanilla, ABC players. This assumption is almost never correct, but then again, neither is any other assumption. Many 2+2ers like to assume that opponents are "bad" until proven otherwise. I agree that most opponents at our limits are bad, but this generalization doesn't really tell us why he just check-raised us on the turn when a rag fell. Is it becasuse he's a maniac? Is it becasue he just made a pair of 4s with a 6 kicker? Is it becasue he flopped a set and read us as on a draw?

There are as many different kinds of "bad" as there are bad players. That CR means one thing from Bad Player Bill, and a totally different thing from Bad Player Phil. So my theory is that there is no completely safe assumption that you can make about an unknown opponent.

The least dangerous assumption to make, I think, is that an opponent is playing ABC. A turn CR when a rag fell means you're in big trouble, and probably have been for a while. Your choice to continue, and how you continue, should be judged by odds & equity, as usual. But don't put a lot of weight on the behavioral patterns of donks and lags.

Like I said, this generic categorization is almost never actually correct. You should strive to correct your estimation of an opponent as quickly as you can but still be right. Pay extremely close attention to the action, even when you're not in a hand. Especially for the first few orbits after you sit down. Most people will reveal thier general nature in just 1 played hand.

This might surprise many of you, but when I play online, I play only 2 tables. Sometimes I play 3 when I'm in a hurry, like clearing a bonus or something. Never 4. The reason is becasuse paying attention to your opponents is critically important, and takes a lot of effort. I can't really tell what a player is like if I have to watch 30 or 40 or more.

Guess that's about all I have to say on this.

[homebrewer]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, here's a little more.
This might surprise many of you, but when I play online, I play only 2 tables. Sometimes I play 3 when I'm in a hurry, like clearing a bonus or something. Never 4. The reason is becasuse paying attention to your opponents is critically important, and takes a lot of effort. I can't really tell what a player is like if I have to watch 30 or 40 or more.


[/ QUOTE ]
I really agree with this sentiment. I'm not surprised that you don't play a lot of tables given your method of making "reads." From what I gather, a lot of people are using PT as the sole basis for their "read." And, don't pay attention to the details that you describe. I don't find PT sufficient and cannot make informative reads when playing more than 2 tables.

[GrunchCan]

ah, well here's another surprise. I stopped using GT+, and all those sorts of things. I run without a net. Works better for me, but your milage may vary.

[nomadtla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, here's a little more.
This might surprise many of you, but when I play online, I play only 2 tables. Sometimes I play 3 when I'm in a hurry, like clearing a bonus or something. Never 4. The reason is becasuse paying attention to your opponents is critically important, and takes a lot of effort. I can't really tell what a player is like if I have to watch 30 or 40 or more.


[/ QUOTE ]
I really agree with this sentiment. I'm not surprised that you don't play a lot of tables given your method of making "reads." From what I gather, a lot of people are using PT as the sole basis for their "read." And, don't pay attention to the details that you describe. I don't find PT sufficient and cannot make informative reads when playing more than 2 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]
agreed I think sometimes to much emphasis is put on PT stats, and we use them as a "crutch". Sure over a large sample you will begin to see how a player truly plays. But you never know if they're just having a Lag/tilt kinda day till you watch all their actions in a few hands. Which can't really be done if you're more that 2 tabling. I also agree with the ABC idea for new players. It's rarely right but it's a safe way to start with a player till they "tell" you how they play. Sorry couldn't help the pun [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[nomadtla]

Have yet to get GT or PT myself, and still trying to decide if I want or need them or will they make me weaker in this area. I like it without a net forces me to pay more attention.

[GrunchCan]

That's what works for me, but you should at least try it out. GT+ type things are very popular among the best posters here. I could be an abbaration. (sp) Or just a bad player.

[@bsolute_luck]

Default read: "don't have one"

until i see showdown hands or stupid stuff like frequent open limping in LP and cold calls, i assume nothing.

this helps because if i assume they are weak/tight or loose/passives, i try to force hands and end up losing a lot more than assume nothing and think about the game at hand. (ps: this is why i suck at multitabling and can and probably never will get past 2 tables at once [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] )

I played 6 weeks of full ring at Paradise basically without any reads at all. Playing from Internet cafes, multitabling on very small screens and lurking at 2+2 at the same time. I started out at the 0.02-0.04 tables and moved up trough the ranks (I wont speak about the very few hands I started out with at the 20-40$ table)
I think you can put some kind of default value to most of the table levels and use that on any unknown player.
I will use Paradise 1-2$ tables as an example.
During the European working hours (8:00-16:00) these tables are very tight (2-3 players on average to the flop) and the game is incredible passive.

I would put an unknown player on
Raise: AA, KK, QQ, AKS and AK
Limb: More or less anything. They are not position aware, except from that they know the value of having the button. They don’t have to play any Ax. Also the call-calling have dropped a lot, but they (and I) still cold-call to much.
They do call you down with a lot off crab but they also sometimes throw their hands away which means you can occasionally steal a pot or two.

Even if you have no reads on people you can look for other information elsewhere

Multitablers – This should bee a danger sign, I would slow down against these player until I get a read.

Money – Surprisingly I did not find this useful. People with 1 to 2 BB seem very eager to get rid off their last bucks though.

Nationality – Eastern Europeans seems to bee a tight bunch. They do vary a lot in playing strength.

Chat – You can learn a lot by watching the chat. Mostly how they regard their own play and their opponents. People who makes a lot of crude remarks should not have understood Small Stakes Hold´em, off course some 2+2 people might just bee mean and merciless. I suppose you could gain some information by asking “Can anyone advise me of any good poker books?”. But I suggest you but the keyboard away and do your homework instead.

Showing cards – I take this as a sign of weakness. “See how unlucky I am”. Giving information away about the hands you play should not bee the hallmark off an expert player.

[David04]

Be. Thank you.

[detruncate]

By default I favour lines with reasonably strong hands that will allow me to see showdowns vs unknowns, tend to respect aggression (usually only to the point of slowing down with a decent hand, but I can find a fold to an obvious sign of strength), assume straighforward play + lack of understanding re. hand valuation + too loose + too passive.

As grunch said, it comes down to basic equity estimates and pot odds. It's what ABC poker is all about.

Just like you get better at making reads with practice, playing vs unknowns is a skill that needs to be worked on. Especially by multi-tablers. You make % plays until you have enough information to adjust.