betting patterns and reads for online poker

i was wondering if anyone could explain some ways to read online opponents maybe by the way they bet, the length of time taken to bet, or anything else.

Besides determining what type of player they are (LAG, Calling Station, Rock) by how many pots they see and how much they bet, I think betting patterns can tell you a lot.

I think the combined experience of the people on this site could put together a good list of typical betting patterns and what they mean. I will try and put together a list of some betting patterns I have noticed (at low buy-in levels). This is simply my opinion, interested to hear any disagreements or additions. Besides simply the pattern and what it says, I will give it my best guess at a reliability rating.

Action: Preflop there is a third raise. Means: AA (or at worst KK). Reliability: 100%.

Action: UTG with relatively short stack (less than 8x BB) bets 2x BB. Means: He has a monster (AA,KK, AK). Reliability: 99%.

Action: Scary flop, you bet out and called. Villan calls until river when he raises you significantly. Means: He was slowplaying you. Reliability: 80%.

Action: The flop pairs (QQ8). Someone bets a reasonable amount. Means: They do not have a Q. It seems almost everybody slowplays trips. Likely have an 8 or high cards (especially if bet is from late position) Reliability: 66%.

Action: Flop paired (JJ8). You bet, he raises 2x your bet. Means: He is likley determining whether his pair of 8's is any good. If he has set, he likely would just call. Reliability: 70%.

Action: Two to flush on flop. You bet, small to medium stack goes all-in. Means: Flush draw. Reliability: 66% (Although I have made a lot of money by playing my two pair or better by check-raising all-in in the same manner in order to get weak TP or middle pairs to call believing I am on a flush draw. I think this variation is becoming more common.)

Action: You bet 1/2 pot or better on flop with TP and they immediately double your bet. Means: They can beat top pair and are looking for you to call. Reliability: 80%.

I am sure there are many more which I would be interested to hear but that is what I can come up with initially. If someone disagrees with what the bets mean or the reliability I would be very interested to hear it since sometimes I think I play too weak-tight.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides determining what type of player they are (LAG, Calling Station, Rock) by how many pots they see and how much they bet, I think betting patterns can tell you a lot.

I think the combined experience of the people on this site could put together a good list of typical betting patterns and what they mean. I will try and put together a list of some betting patterns I have noticed (at low buy-in levels). This is simply my opinion, interested to hear any disagreements or additions. Besides simply the pattern and what it says, I will give it my best guess at a reliability rating.

Action: Preflop there is a third raise. Means: AA (or at worst KK). Reliability: 100%.

Action: UTG with relatively short stack (less than 8x BB) bets 2x BB. Means: He has a monster (AA,KK, AK). Reliability: 99%.

Action: Scary flop, you bet out and called. Villan calls until river when he raises you significantly. Means: He was slowplaying you. Reliability: 80%.

Action: The flop pairs (QQ8). Someone bets a reasonable amount. Means: They do not have a Q. It seems almost everybody slowplays trips. Likely have an 8 or high cards (especially if bet is from late position) Reliability: 66%.

Action: Flop paired (JJ8). You bet, he raises 2x your bet. Means: He is likley determining whether his pair of 8's is any good. If he has set, he likely would just call. Reliability: 70%.

Action: Two to flush on flop. You bet, small to medium stack goes all-in. Means: Flush draw. Reliability: 66% (Although I have made a lot of money by playing my two pair or better by check-raising all-in in the same manner in order to get weak TP or middle pairs to call believing I am on a flush draw. I think this variation is becoming more common.)

Action: You bet 1/2 pot or better on flop with TP and they immediately double your bet. Means: They can beat top pair and are looking for you to call. Reliability: 80%.

I am sure there are many more which I would be interested to hear but that is what I can come up with initially. If someone disagrees with what the bets mean or the reliability I would be very interested to hear it since sometimes I think I play too weak-tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many players will fastplay trips and much stronger hands, and people with your logic pay them off. UTG with 8x BB minraising doesn't necessarily mean AA KK or AK, I've seen MUCH worse from the resident donks of low buy-ins, such as 55 and A7s. If your range is AA/KK/AK for every player here, you insta muck QQ/JJ here? 99% Reliability for this at low buyins? Jeeze. And the guy putting in the third raise is DEFINATLY not holding AA or even KK a full 100% of the time at low buy-ins.

Someone minraises you and you instantly hate TP? What about TPTK? Thats pretty weak. A minraise could mean many things from many players in many situations.

So basically, I reraise all in on two tone boards whenever I hit hard and you bet (you yourself stated you do this, so why would you be so confident that this would mean flush draw? 66% Might be close enough though, I don't know), I fastplay all my big hands against you, and raise all of your continuation bets, and I will consistantly run you over?

I do agree that some of your observations MAY BE SOMEWHAT accurate against CERTAIN players, but your job is to figure out who those certain players are, as betting patterns apply to individuals, which you have to read and figure out. You can't just assume that the guy cannot have trips because he bet, because you will be getting burned by decent players quite a bit, as fastplaying is quickly becoming the new slowplaying. At higher buyins, and even against many low buyin regulars, much of what you said will not fly a good amount of the time. Certainly there will be players for whom those patterns may be correct, but to make generalized observations like this and read everyone the same way will certainly hurt you. You have to read betting patterns based on the individual and the situation and can't stamp out guidelines for robot-play here.

As far as the original poster, just pay attention to your opponents, see what they do in certain situations, and take notes. Then use that information against them. Theres a link in the sticky to note-taking that points out pretty much everything there is to look for.

I think the time that opponents take to bet is more significant than people think. When people take a long time to call, it could mean a lot of things (connection problems, talking to someone while they play, etc.). However, when they act quickly, you can know that they didn't have to think. So, when someone calls raises on the BB quickly a few times, you can assume that they like to defend, or when someone folds quickly on the button when folded to, you can know that they don't know to steal the blinds, etc.

I completely agree that you can not play like a robot. You need to observe your opponents and determine how they play. Do they fast play strong hands? Are they a weak player who has bet 2x the BB often and has folded to reraises? etc.

The percentages for certain plays was probably overstated, likely they are never over 90% for the general population. However, I think a conversation about these types of plays and where people think the percentages are is a good conversation. The percentages are different for different kinds of players and I think the game evolves...as you said more people are fast playing strong hands because they are getting called by mediocre hands who think the other person is bluffing/on a draw.

A couple of responses to your comments:

A min raise when I have TPTK. Maybe I have selective memory but it seems like every time that happens I am against a strong hand (if there are no draws on the board). But because of the possibility of a bluff as well as the pot odds at the point, I almost always call and see what they do on the turn. I don't hate the hand, I am just cautious. I think this may be a leak in my game so interested to hear how you would play it.

The flop pairs and someone bets anywhere from a small bet to 1/2 the pot and I have an overpair. I would raise them and find out where I am at. If they do not have trips it is going to be hard for them to call, if they can reraise bluff me all-in at this point, they get a gold star and the pot (unless they have proven to be a habitual bluffer).

You raise all my continuation bets. Since my continuation bets are the same size as when I hit the flop (approximately 1/2 the pot), you will win the pots when I am doing a continuation bet and lose big when I have a strong hand. My choice of reraising of course depends on stack size, stage of tournament, your prior actions, etc.

3 signficant reraises preflop and your in the BB with QQ/JJ and you would call/reraise with a stack size of 15-20 BB? I think your cannon fodder with that play. If not 100%, it is very close that one of them has AA, KK, or AK and for the few times that I may be wrong it is not right to reraise all the other times.

I know I don't have the absolute answers and that a lot of it depends...But I do think there are patterns to watch for and depending on the player and situation, you can make an accurate estimate of what they have. I believe this is one of the keys the best players depend on and I think there could be more discussion about what these patterns are. If you disagree with my examples, I would be interested to see other examples.

The main point I am trying to make is that you can say a SPECIFIC PERSON will be betting like that with that holding and be accurate a % of the time, but I think you shouldn't generalize that thought and just apply it to the majority, due to the diversity of the general population. Therefore, I think it is misleading and counterproductive to create general guidelines as to how to play a situation when your opponent plays in the predicted way, as the same patterns mean completely different things for different people. It is your job to figure things out for each particular situation.

I'm not saying the guy wont have the monster on that drawless board, or he wont have AA when he puts in the third raise, or that I wont fold in a similar spot you would. Reading opponents and addressing situations individually are key components of poker. There is a reason why we bother giving people labels, and why certain lines and plays will be effective against some players and terrible against others. This is why the game is so much different going up in limits in cash games, as you are able to take different approaches to the same situations against different players and generate +EV.

If you give me actual hands and whatever reads you had, I could tell you how I would likely play them, as would anyone on these forums, but there are no cure-all solutions to the problems.

"I know I don't have the absolute answers and that a lot of it depends...But I do think there are patterns to watch for and depending on the player and situation, you can make an accurate estimate of what they have."

Yup, exactly. Depending on the player, and the situation, you can certainly do your best to make an accurate estimate of what their hand range is. Thats what you should be trying to do in every hand you are involved AND not involved in at the table, by applying all of the information you have present. There is plenty of discussion on betting patterns.. hell, most hands posted on here if you think about it in that sense.

[ QUOTE ]
fastplaying is quickly becoming the new slowplaying.

[/ QUOTE ]

How right you are, I still slowplay occasionally, but alot of the time fastplaying my made hands will get me action too, since everyone is accustomed to me betting and raising with far less than the nuts.

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you shouldn't generalize that thought and just apply it to the majority, due to the diversity of the general population.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about applying general rules as a guideline and adjusting for the individual? Is it not better to have at least a place to start?