Reading hands

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
Would most players generally agree with the following statement: "The wider the range of hands an opponent thinks you might have the better."

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, it depends. If your opponent always puts you on aces, he may fold many strong hands that he could beat you with - which is good.

On the other side, if he puts you on a variety of hands his own requirements will usually go down with it, so you will probably face weaker hands from his part.

I'd say the key is the potsize. If the pot is big, you want to win it without a showdown, so it is better if he puts you on aces.

[RiverDood]

[ QUOTE ]
ok so now i'm thinking it is just a question of style.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice insight. If you play loose aggressive, you probably thrive on opponents that can't narrow the range. You open raise, get two callers, the flop is A63, and you raise. It feels like you've got Ax -- but what is x???? Are you playing AK, AT, A7 or A6? If the poor guy with AJ can't narrow the range, it's very likely that he will get call one bet and then get pushed off his hand.

If I'm playing tight, I probably won't be in the hand with A7 or A6. So it's easier to put me on a tight range. But I'm OK with that. I'm still playing against shaky enough players that they'll stick around with AJ on an Axx board even if they think they're beat. And in some murkier hands, there's always the possibility of representing an overpair or a made flush well enough to get the guy with the better hand to fold. You want broad hazy reads; I want narrow misreads.

[dfan]

I think I remember an example by Brunson where he was pointing out the advantage of sometimes deliberately defining your hand for your opponent because then his betting response told you whether you were likely beaten or not. I don't remember the exact example, but it was an interesting idea I had never considered.

[ QUOTE ]
I think I remember an example by Brunson where he was pointing out the advantage of sometimes deliberately defining your hand for your opponent because then his betting response told you whether you were likely beaten or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I'm 10% of the player DB is or anything, but I played this way instinctively before I ever read about it.

Here's an example. In NL you have AhKd and raise UTG preflop and a single player calls. Everyone else folds. The flop comes Kc9s8s.

You overbet the pot, say betting 1000 into a 500 pot. In doing so, you are deliberately "telling" your opponent:

- I have top pair and I think it's good.

- I'm susceptible to the draw, which is why I overbet the pot.

- I've hopefully ruined your pot odds if you are on a draw, you can call if you want to but I'd be happy if you folded.

[ChuckyB]

I'd like to have him completely mis-read my hand. Put me on a pair of 5s, then I turn over KQs for the nut flush.

[rickieO]

I think a few of you are over-analyzing here. The greater the range of hands that my opponent thinks i have, the more confused he will be.

Bottom line: How does my opponent tend to act when he is confused? Does he call, as many poor players would? Does he raise to "find out?" Does he fold when he's unsure?

I think riverdood makes the most sense here.

rickiebear

a) This makes it less likely that your opponent will be able to put you on a hand.
b) This makes it more likely that your actual hand is within this range.

Ideally, you want your opponent to think you have the best hand when you have the worst hand and think you have the worst hand when you have the best hand.

If the player is good at reading hands, a larger range is more ideal. If the player is bad at reading hands, a narrower range is more ideal.

[ewashingtons]

"If the player is good at reading hands, a larger range is more ideal. If the player is bad at reading hands, a narrower range is more ideal."

done and done.