categorizing your opponents??

i have been thinking about this for awhile.

i find it very hard to characterize my opponents in SNG. do people think there is enough time for that AND/OR are lower level players easy to categorize?

it seems like other than maybe about 2 people out of 10 who are completely crazy and want to go all-in for its own sake (i.e. they are just having fun with the gambling aspect), the rest are pretty unpredictable.

if i start with 1500 chips and the blinds have gone up to 50/100, so i put in a 300 chip raise with KK, i have almost no clue whether they'll all fold or 3 will call (i know it depends moderately on everyone's position)....

i just find the players completely unpredictable and that there isn't enough time to really dissect their patterns.

any thoughts??

YOU MAY WANT TO SKIP THE REST (IT'S BASICALLY A CRY FOR HELP! lol)

just a note (probably what i wanted to say at the start):
probably this is just an extension of a recent tailspin. i was running quite hot for awhile and of course thought it was my great skill. now, i'm getting busted all over the place. i've even been breaking people's bluffs quite well (i.e. reading them nicely) and then they river on me....

i am learning the hard way that cards run hot and cold. and i knew that already, but the more i write it here i can go back and read this when i've somehow forgotten.

[pineapple888]

Online, at least below the $215s, most decisions are not opponent-specific.

I don't think your example with KK is particularly interesting because you're raising either way, whether others come along or not.

When you face a decision that's read-based, you just have to do the best you can. But online players are often random, so don't let it bother you if they do something unexpected.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Online, at least below the $215s, most decisions are not opponent-specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

that statement is dumb.

c

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Online, at least below the $215s, most decisions are not opponent-specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

that statement is dumb.

c

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? You making a ton of read-based decisions eight-tabling?

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Online, at least below the $215s, most decisions are not opponent-specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

that statement is dumb.

c

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? You making a ton of read-based decisions eight-tabling?

[/ QUOTE ]

a) yes
b) your original statement had nothing to do with 8 tabling
c) if below the 215s you don't learn to make reads, how do you somehow come up with the ability when you get to the 215s
d) i don't always/often 8 table due to other constraints, not that that matters
e) it is not, nor should it be, the goal of everyone in the universe to play as many tables as they humanly can
f) etc

c

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Online, at least below the $215s, most decisions are not opponent-specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

that statement is dumb.

c

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? You making a ton of read-based decisions eight-tabling?

[/ QUOTE ]

a) yes
b) your original statement had nothing to do with 8 tabling
c) if below the 215s you don't learn to make reads, how do you somehow come up with the ability when you get to the 215s
d) i don't always/often 8 table due to other constraints, not that that matters
e) it is not, nor should it be, the goal of everyone in the universe to play as many tables as they humanly can
f) etc

c

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on.

OK, forget 8-tabling.

Early on, you're folding most of the time, making standard raises or limps most of the rest of the time, and making standard plays post-flop most of the time.

Later, it's push-or-fold, based mostly on position, cards, blinds, and stacks.

Yeah, occasionally reads help with marginal decisions. Also, if you get a donk who folds too much heads-up, I guess that counts as a "read".

But otherwise, it's just not all that important.

[jb9]

It can be hard to get reads on people in one SNG, and by the time you have a read on someone, you or he is likely to be eliminated.

That said, I find reads can be very helpful when you get down to 5 or fewer players (and you usually have enough hands to have some kind of a read on 1 or 2 of them).

A few things I try to pick up on are:
<ul type="square">[*]someone who can raise preflop and fold or check/fold the flop (probably plays his cards)
[*]someone who overdefends his blinds but folds easily on the flop (steal on the flop, not preflop)
[*]someone who checkraises (some people just don't...)
[*]someone who is tight but never raises preflop (if he bets the flop, he's got something...)
[*]someone who plays any ace
[*]someone who bets any pair on the flop
[*]someone who is tight early and gets aggressive when down to 8-12 BB (then I think it's one of you)
[*]maniacs (isolate)
[*]calling stations (don't bluff)
[*]someone trying to fold into the money (steal all his blinds)
[*]someone who has folded to a scare card in a big pot
[*]someone whose chat indicates he is a 'by the book' player (usually won't adjust when game is shorthanded) [/list]Of course with so few hands, these reads are sometimes wrong, but they are right enough to make them worthwhile, and if you see the same player again you can refine your read.

FWIW, I'm just a recreational player and usually play 1 or 2 tables at a time in the $10-$30 buyin range.

I only single table 11's, but by the time I reach the bubble I have a pretty good read on each one of the remaining opponents.

I don't think you're engaged enough in the hands you aren't in. I pay attention to every bet at the table regardless of whether I'm in a hand or not. I also take pretty thorough notes.

Maybe this is excessive, but I'm not blessed with great natural talent for the game. It seems to have served me well this far.