|
|
|
|
#1
12-23-2005, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Betting patterns as tells.
splashpot: I'm really *not* thinking about a specific hand or hands; I'm trying to think about a situation. In general, these happen early in the tournament (level 1 or 2) so that the river bet is a definite overbet to the pot. I could try and find an example if you think it would help illustrate the point, but I'd rather not be specific, since I'd rather think about the broader question of reading betting patterns rather than analyzing a specific hand.
|
|
#2
12-23-2005, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Betting patterns as tells.
[ QUOTE ]
splashpot: I'm really *not* thinking about a specific hand or hands; I'm trying to think about a situation. In general, these happen early in the tournament (level 1 or 2) so that the river bet is a definite overbet to the pot. I could try and find an example if you think it would help illustrate the point, but I'd rather not be specific, since I'd rather think about the broader question of reading betting patterns rather than analyzing a specific hand. [/ QUOTE ] In a broader sense, the information that you get on the end is usually correct. In other words, when he has shown weakness on every street and then suddenly shows a lot of strength on the end, he has a hand most of the time. If I don't have a specific read, I'm folding. Most of the players at the 11s have no idea what size bets they should be making.
|
|
#3
12-23-2005, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Betting patterns as tells.
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the players at the 11s have no idea what size bets they should be making. [/ QUOTE ] Not understanding that single fact has caused me a lot of frustration in the past. The flip of that: They don't understand the size of bets YOU make is also important. I guess I side with Paul Phillips on this one - he talks about defaulting overbets to very strong hands without reads. For sure a large bet into a small pot is MOST OFTEN a really good made hand that wants more money.
|
|
#4
12-23-2005, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Betting patterns as tells.
See the problem with trying to generalize the situation like that is the fact that it depends on so many other things. How scary the board is, how strong your hand is, your position, his position, your stack sizes, how desperate each of you are getting, the blind sizes, etc. I mean really, in some situations, what you described could be a clear fold. In other situations it would be a clear call.
In my experience, it is easier to learn from specific hands. Just post hand after hand after hand. Even if you get ripped apart. Even if you look like a complete noob. Even if you get flamed to death. That's the easiest way to get a feel for it. It's how I learned.
|
|
#5
12-23-2005, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Betting patterns as tells.
Ironically, you answered my question when you said you couldn't answer my question. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ] it depends on so many other things. How scary the board is, how strong your hand is, your position, his position, your stack sizes, how desperate each of you are getting, the blind sizes, etc. [/ QUOTE ] This is the kind of thing I was looking for: what are the main issues to consider when this situation pops up. Am I interpreting the list correctly here? 1. "How scary the board is, how strong your hand is," -- in a sense, these two are the same, since the scariness of the board is directly related to the strength of your hand. If you've got a hand that can only lose to a flush, and someone makes a huge bet on the flush card, that's a more likely call than if they make a huge bet on the flush card when you've got fourth pair. 2. "your position, his position," -- I tend to see these hands most frequently in a heads-up situation, so these also become the same issue. I'd say if he's behind me it's more likely a bluff after I showed weakness, whereas if he's in front of me, it's more likely a real bet. 3. "your stack sizes, how desperate each of you are getting, the blind sizes," -- all three of these seem closely related. If he's either very desperate or very deep-stacked, it's more likely the bet is a bluff. If I'm very short-stacked, it's more likely the bet is a bluff. If I'm deep-stacked and he's got a middle-stack, it's more likely a value bet. Am I thinking about these issues correctly or am I fundamentally confuzzled?
|
|
#6
12-23-2005, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Betting patterns as tells.
[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, you answered my question when you said you couldn't answer my question. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] it depends on so many other things. How scary the board is, how strong your hand is, your position, his position, your stack sizes, how desperate each of you are getting, the blind sizes, etc. [/ QUOTE ] This is the kind of thing I was looking for: what are the main issues to consider when this situation pops up. Am I interpreting the list correctly here? 1. "How scary the board is, how strong your hand is," -- in a sense, these two are the same, since the scariness of the board is directly related to the strength of your hand. If you've got a hand that can only lose to a flush, and someone makes a huge bet on the flush card, that's a more likely call than if they make a huge bet on the flush card when you've got fourth pair. 2. "your position, his position," -- I tend to see these hands most frequently in a heads-up situation, so these also become the same issue. I'd say if he's behind me it's more likely a bluff after I showed weakness, whereas if he's in front of me, it's more likely a real bet. 3. "your stack sizes, how desperate each of you are getting, the blind sizes," -- all three of these seem closely related. If he's either very desperate or very deep-stacked, it's more likely the bet is a bluff. If I'm very short-stacked, it's more likely the bet is a bluff. If I'm deep-stacked and he's got a middle-stack, it's more likely a value bet. Am I thinking about these issues correctly or am I fundamentally confuzzled? [/ QUOTE ] Lol. That is what you were looking for? That's basicly hand reading skills. You have to do this for just about every hand you play. Not just when they check/call, check/call, push. Well, anyways, glad I helped....I guess.
|
|
#8
12-23-2005, 01:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Betting patterns as tells.
[ QUOTE ]
1. "How scary the board is, how strong your hand is," -- in a sense, these two are the same, since the scariness of the board is directly related to the strength of your hand. If you've got a hand that can only lose to a flush, and someone makes a huge bet on the flush card, that's a more likely call than if they make a huge bet on the flush card when you've got fourth pair. [/ QUOTE ] Seems pretty obvious to me...if you have a strong hand that only one kind of hand can beat, its more likely a call than a weak hand that 58947569 hands can beat. However, if it seems like the only hand your opponent can hold based on the way he played it is the one hand that beats you, then obviously you fold. [ QUOTE ] 2. "your position, his position," -- I tend to see these hands most frequently in a heads-up situation, so these also become the same issue. I'd say if he's behind me it's more likely a bluff after I showed weakness, whereas if he's in front of me, it's more likely a real bet. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, its more likely that an opponent is bluffing from late position than early position. Does it mean you should call his possible bluff? Not necessarily. There's a reason why its easier to bluff from late position than early position. [ QUOTE ] 3. "your stack sizes, how desperate each of you are getting, the blind sizes," -- all three of these seem closely related. If he's either very desperate or very deep-stacked, it's more likely the bet is a bluff. If I'm very short-stacked, it's more likely the bet is a bluff. If I'm deep-stacked and he's got a middle-stack, it's more likely a value bet. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, if you can put people on hand ranges, the wider the pusher's hand range, the more hands you can call with...and generally the tighter the possible callers' hand range, the more hands you can push with on the bubble. That's simple ICM calculations.
|
|
#9
12-23-2005, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Betting patterns as tells.
[ QUOTE ]
Am I thinking about these issues correctly or am I fundamentally confuzzled? [/ QUOTE ] That's a pretty good summary, however, there's one thing you really, really need to realise. At low buy-ins, there's not a lot of bluffing. That's because there are many, many donkeys who have no idea what they are doing and will call, call, call. So players who over bluff tend to go broke really quickly. Which means they either stop playing or they stop bluffing. It's poker darwinism. Therefore, at low buy-ins, the default assumption is "He has it and I'm folding" until I have solid evidence otherwise. This evidence includes: A) The guy is a total LAG and/or I've seen him make this kind of move before (Obviously, the more often I've seen him do this, the more likely I am to call) B) The guy is a thinking player who probably has a read on me as someone who knows how to fold (uncommon situation in a low limit SNG unless you're playing in a 2+2 tournament [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. More common in, say, an MTT where you've been playing at the same table with someone for a long time) C) Pot, blind and stack size dictate my play regardless of everything else (the pot is huge and his push is small or the pot is huge, my stack is small and the blinds are big, etc) Regardless, when calling a bluff online, particularly at low buy-ins you can expect to be beat a significant amount so don't do it unless you have a really good reason.
|
|
#10
12-23-2005, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Betting patterns as tells.
[ QUOTE ]
but I'd rather not be specific, [/ QUOTE ] The whole point of the previous replies is that you can't generalise here, you need some kind of read on the opponent - ie: a weak/tight opponent, particularly a calling station, is unlikely to try a big river bluff while a LAG is far more likely to be trying to buy the pot. Still, even a huge LAG will sometimes have a hand, and even the biggest rock will try to make a move (or mistake) every once in a while. So there's always going to be some margin of error. If they've just called all the way then pushed the river, the only information you have is A) reads and B) the calls themselves - ie: Did they call a preflop raise? How many players in the pot before they limped? What about the flop/turn action? Were they calling behind several other callers, possibly giving them pot/implied odds to chase? Against complete donkeys this kind of info is going to be less valuable if they play the same from any position or will chase regardless of odds. However, this is why the replies have been asking for specific hands, because there may be more information available than you think there is. Particularly if you can get any kind of read on the player with respect to donkey/not donkey, passive/aggressive and loose/tight.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
