Reading hands

[ewashingtons]

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

[ 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 ]

Insufficient data to compute, IMHO.

Everything is relative. If his interpretation of only having you on a wide range of hands causes him so much uncertainty that he folds, then sure you take down a pot, but perhaps not as much as you possibly could have.

If his interpretation of having you on a wide range of hands makes it more likely that he will misplay his hand if he stays in it, then better for you.

An example for discusssion, you are in the SB and are a smart aggressive player. The BB has a little pair like 22, 33, 44, 55. Everyone folds to you.

Let's say for purposes of discussion, you know what the BB has, but he/she doesn't know what you have.

You are likely to raise with any number of hands (probably the less stronger ones). You are also likely to slow play a lot of hands (probably the very strong ones).

Now what?

Or to look at it another way, put yourself in the BB with the baby pair and the smart aggressive opponent in the SB, raising with a wide variety.

Now what?

[RiverDood]

[ 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 ]

Not exactly.

The more severely an opponent misgauges my hand, the better. We're looking for someone who's getting snarled in the bad end of the Fundamental Theorem of Poker.

In situations where I've got a great hand and am looking for action, a very hazy read by my opponent serves my needs nicely. In that case, your statement is correct.

But if I'm bluffing with any two, I want my opponent to make a precise -- and howlingly wrong -- read of what I've got, seeing strength where there is none. Being put on a wide range is not my ideal outcome.

[Charlie J]

I agree with the above two posts.

Your opponent having you on a wide range of hands may help you to take down some pots here and there, but when they misread you is the most profitable.

If they hold AQs and you hold 99 red and the flop comes
109Q..you bet out two times the blind they will most likely raise you having you on a draw or like JJ. If you re-raised them it would indicate trips which is why I wouldnt reraise here. If they leave on on JJand a Q falls...your golden...and own them...

[ewashingtons]

So far it sounds like everyone is saying pretty much the same thing: that they would like to have their opponents to put them on specific cards, to have their opponents' guesses be wrong, but also to have their opponent be relatively sure they are right.
Obviously this would be the ideal situation, as it is the one that allows us to win the most chips on any particular hand.
However, in my experience these situations are not very common. They are even rarer when playing against good thinking opponents. If you are a good player, a good opponent should put you on a range of hands, adjusting this range with each new piece of information and assigning probabilities to each possible hand in this range, acting accordingly.
If most of your hands are going to occur in situations like this would it not be better for this range of hands to be as wide as possible.

[RiverDood]

[ QUOTE ]
So far it sounds like everyone is saying pretty much the same thing: that they would like to have their opponents to put them on specific cards, to have their opponents' guesses be wrong, but also to have their opponent be relatively sure they are right. . . . in my experience these situations are not very common. They are even rarer when playing against good thinking opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll disagree with the last sentence. Remember the old saying: "You can't bluff a bad player"? The converse is true, too. If you're playing against a good thinking opponent, you can set up betting patterns that ONLY MAKE SENSE if you have a particular hand. The shrewder your opponent, the more likely he is to spot those betting patterns, analyze them "correctly" and credit you with that exact hand. Great bluffs succeed because the opponent is willing to trust his/her analysis enough to fold.

Simple case -- I've been playing tight all night at a live game and open big UTG. Everyone folds to me. I ask everyone what they thought I had. "Pocket jacks" is the consensus. Actually I had 33. But I figured it was a discerning enough table that they would credit me with a better hand.

Against strong players, I need a couple such pots a night to have much chance of making money with middling cards. Being habitually put on a wide range is going to make it impossible for me to pick off such pots.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are a good player, a good opponent should put you on a range of hands, adjusting this range with each new piece of information and assigning probabilities to each possible hand in this range, acting accordingly.
If most of your hands are going to occur in situations like this would it not be better for this range of hands to be as wide as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I get your point. If the question is: would I rather play against an opponent who's a skilled hand-reader vs. one who doesn't even try, sure -- I'll take Donnie Dimbulb every time. But that seems horribly obvious.

Is there a subtler point here that I'm missing?

Using the assumption that Poker is, basically, either of two choices, I offer the following:

1. You're comfortable you've got the best hand and you do everything you can to hide that fact.

2. You're pretty sure you've got the worst hand and you do everything you can to hide that fact.

Now, if you're in situation 1, you're going to make moves which will lead the other player(s) to think you've got X, rather than Y.

Knowing that you, being the well-read, experienced player that you are, in many cases will tend to do just the opposite of what is usually considered to be the "best" move, counters whatever play you've just made with what he feels is the action which you, comfortable that you've got a good read on him, either will or will not expect.

A round of betting ensues. Another card is dealt/turned and we begin the process again. Given the action on the previous card, we now have a situation whereby...

My head hurts. I think I'm going to go lay down for a while.

[ewashingtons]

ok so now i'm thinking it is just a question of style.
Sure, you could play tight all night, in which case you're smart thinking opponents would presumably pick up on this and give you credit for a hand whenever you bet or raise. If they do this they will rarely if ever pay you off on your big hands but you will probably win the vast majority of pots that you decide to play.
True, this style will allow you to also raise occasionally with a weaker hand and win the pot because everyone thinks you have a stonger hand than you actually have. If you really are a tight player, however, you will probably only pull this move off two or three times a session.
What you're saying is that you want you're opponents to put you on a small range of cards every time you're in a pot and be correct most of the time.

i don't think this is how i would ideally play. i want to get paid off on my big hands and i think that if i can get my opponents to be really clueless about what i'm holding every time i'm in a pot i would argue that that's a good thing. thoughts?

[benkahuna]

[ 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 ]

I think most players if they thought about it would feel ambivalently about your statement.

For me, I would give that annoying, but often appropriate, it "it depends."

I want opponents that I can figure out so that I know how to play them. If I can't figure them out then I'm in the most trouble. I prefer to just adjust to them because that's what I'm used to doing. Adjusting to them may include me adjusting to them adjusting to me.

No. I'd prefer he thought I had the nuts.