how soon do bad decisions converge

[asofel]

You're playing an unknown. He makes an unexpected raise UTG. Lets say 92o. How many of these plays does he need to make before you label him an idiot?

Personally I feel this converges pretty quickly as I can't find any logical reason for anyone decent to raise 92o UTG...Just curious as to what others think...there used to be some plays that I thought maniacal that I know understand on a different level...

[Subfallen]

Misclicks happen. Today I raised Q4o UTG and cold-called with J5o. I need a new mouse.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
Misclicks happen. Today I raised Q4o UTG and cold-called with J5o. I need a new mouse.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahah, sorry to hear it man...but seriously though, given prior play and the plays I saw afterwards, this was definitely not a misclick [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Lash]

Yes, I have been realizing this a lot more lately and am now taking the time to re-evaluate and update my opinions.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I have been realizing this a lot more lately and am now taking the time to re-evaluate and update my opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

anyone else have input? if this is uninteresting I'll just let it die, but i want to give it one more chance....

[RandBriscoe]

About 3.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Misclicks happen. Today I raised Q4o UTG and cold-called with J5o. I need a new mouse.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahah, sorry to hear it man...but seriously though, given prior play and the plays I saw afterwards, this was definitely not a misclick [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure about that. This one guy misclicked 6 times against me in the same hand. Maybe that's the real difference between big winners and big losers. The winners misclick less often.

[Lash]

First off I don’t think you should ever label anyone an idiot. This is something I’ve been guilty of in the past and am trying to get away from. If I can curb my ego a little and look past the 92o as a poor hand and/or play, and start to look at the motive behind it, a couple things might happen:

1) I see a logical motive - (maybe a poor one even) - It’s there however, and has value – Figure it out / implement what I can into my game / how can I exploit?

2) I see no logical motive - I just can’t comprehend it if it is in fact there – Maybe it’s emotional / chemical? Or maybe I’m playing against a monkey – Misclick?

This is exactly why I find using these sorts of maniacal tactics effective at times. I’m not saying it’s some untapped fountain of profit, although it could be. I just see others reactions to it (maniacal tactics) as extremely valuable. I recognize how quick I label another player a fool, or a lagtard. Realizing this… I see just how exploitable that rigid point of view is.

For example, the next time I see this guy that raised UTG w/ 92o, I open up my range of hands I may play back with. When you start looking at the implications of this through all streets of one single hand… How many extra bets might this 92o guy get from me just because I was discriminating based on one starting hand he played?

I went on a tangent here, but let me try to answer the original question. How soon do bad decisions converge? I think they converge as soon as they betray the decision-makers relationship with other players observant enough to realize what is actually going on.

[meow_meow]

Forget the idiot labelling thing.
If the question is "how many more times do I have to see him do something similar before I change the way I play against him?" The answer is zero.

Sure, misclicks happen.
Sure, people occasionally make -EV plays for advertising purposes.

Vast majority of times that 92o gets raised UTG, it is by someone who sucks at poker.

That said, if I never see this player get out of line again, my read on the "moron meter" will gradually decrease. To say that another way, one moronic play will make me play him differently, but reads should be continuously updated.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
First off I don’t think you should ever label anyone an idiot. This is something I’ve been guilty of in the past and am trying to get away from. If I can curb my ego a little and look past the 92o as a poor hand and/or play, and start to look at the motive behind it, a couple things might happen:

1) I see a logical motive - (maybe a poor one even) - It’s there however, and has value – Figure it out / implement what I can into my game / how can I exploit?

2) I see no logical motive - I just can’t comprehend it if it is in fact there – Maybe it’s emotional / chemical? Or maybe I’m playing against a monkey – Misclick?

This is exactly why I find using these sorts of maniacal tactics effective at times. I’m not saying it’s some untapped fountain of profit, although it could be. I just see others reactions to it (maniacal tactics) as extremely valuable. I recognize how quick I label another player a fool, or a lagtard. Realizing this… I see just how exploitable that rigid point of view is.

For example, the next time I see this guy that raised UTG w/ 92o, I open up my range of hands I may play back with. When you start looking at the implications of this through all streets of one single hand… How many extra bets might this 92o guy get from me just because I was discriminating based on one starting hand he played?

I went on a tangent here, but let me try to answer the original question. How soon do bad decisions converge? I think they converge as soon as they betray the decision-makers relationship with other players observant enough to realize what is actually going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

well said lash, thanks for your thoughts.