|
|
#11
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. 
|
|
#12
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.
|
|
#13
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
