How much do you trust your reads? (LC)

[kurto]

There are times when the "2+2" side of me is at conflict with the 'gut' side of me. Its very hard sometimes to reconcile instinct with the rational way we approach poker at this site.

I'm just curious how often the grinders here ignore the 'logical' thing to do and trust your reads?

here's the hand that I completely blew... and yet I felt very happy about my read that I completely ignored. (note in advance- I played everything wrong about this hand because my internal alarm bells were screaming and were battling with my brain.)

I'm in the bb and I have pocket kings.

Now I've been sitting at this same table for a couple of hours and it has a rhythm. UTG+1 opens to 6bb. Immediately my alarm bells go off. No one opens for 6bb at this table. The guy has been at the table with me for a few hours. His stats make him TAP. Its hard to describe how glaring this 6bb raise was. Other tables and with other people I wouldn't have blinked. But at this table with this guy.... I said to myself "this guy has aces."

There's another caller… and 99% of the time I reraise here. After all, I have the 2nd best starting hand in poker. But I call.

The flop is something like Q93. I check, the pf raiser bets pot, other guy folds, and it comes back to me. Now the 2+2 is battling with my gut,... "this is not how you play kings. You have played this so passively. You only have to worry about pocket aces or pocket queens here... besides, you're tight, you could rep 2 pair or a set with a checkraise." So I reraise him.

The guy thinks and thinks and thinks… decides he's not folding so he pushes. I gotta call because, heck, I've got pocket Kings and I've bloated the pot so much.

So my hand doesn't improve and, sure enough, he has aces.

I'll be the first to say that we're not, in most cases, supposed to be results oriented. And I've been a part of many a thread about how you shouldn't fold Kings preflop... get it all in if you can. I know that you should normally put your opponent on a range of hands... and I believe all that.

At the same time, sometimes instinct can be better then math. Sometimes you know.

And I'll be the first to say that the difference between a 4bb raise and a 6bb raise 99% of the time isn't the same as someone turning their hand over preflop and showing you their cards. But perhaps 1% of the time that minor pattern difference tells you everything? Learning how to trust that voice in us is difficult. But I know listening to it is important. We need math, logic AND instinct.

To be honest, I don't expect much support here. I've been posting here for years and I don't think I've seen anyone on this forum, particularly at low stakes, who would ever agree to trust a read to this degree, especially with such slim information. But, I actually think this is wrong. There is conscious and subconscious analysis going on all the time at the poker table. I argue that sometimes we KNOW where we stand even if our rational analysis (hand ranges and such) contradict it.

I played everything about this hand wrong... and yet, I would have been thrilled if I trusted my instincts and folded on the flop (or bet/folded... as that's how it should have been played).

I hope this doesn't get me banned for Microstakes /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]


I'm just curious how often the grinders here ignore the 'logical' thing to do and trust your reads?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without reading any further, this is one of those things that I see crop up at 2+2 across all the forums pretty constantly that makes no sense. Reads are an input to the logic; they don't exist independent of the "math" side of the game. Your logic should be incorporating the reads if it's going to be good.

Very, very specific reads like the one you present are a different case, simply because you need a high degree of certainty in order to proceed. Often times we don't have that degree of certainty and so you go with default actions. But, in general, your thought processes shouldn't be as static as "I have kings, this is what I'm supposed to do."

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Reads are an input to the logic; they don't exist independent of the "math" side of the game. Your logic should be incorporating the reads if it's going to be good.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I should change 'reads' to 'instinct.'

And I think there are different schools of thought here (2+2) regarding how much weight people give to their reads.

Though in this case, I'm saying with minimal information you get smacked in the face with a read. Certainly there is information but not necessarily something you could describe in a 2+2 post. Information that you can't articulate but your brain sounds an alarm.

Mind you- this isn't happening every time I play. More like an occasional hand every couple of weeks.

There are a lot of players who play by feel. Perhaps there's more to it?

[delta k]

try this, it worked for me:

normall i play a certain way, using math, logic, everything I can. but from time to time i'll open up a table lower than my normal stakes and try to play 'read based poker' which involves knowing when i can push TP on the flop, putting my opponent on hands that i beat/beat me, etc. that sounds like normal poker but at my normal stakes i am too focused on the money to make certain calls/folds, especially when the math is in my favor. all the best poker players make their reads and trust them. and i guess my moving down i'm able to trust my reads better (somehow) that I am at my normal stakes. then when i move up i have a better feeling for how i'm playing, what others have, what certain moves mean, etc.

i know it sounds silly (drop down and trust your reads) and maybe i suck at explaining but for me this works. i turn off huds and try to get into the heads of these players and off of autopilot, which would say c/r flop all-in here (or re-raise pf). you had a read and you didn't follow it for one reason or another.

a read you don't trust is nothing.

[ColdSteel]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just curious how often the grinders here ignore the 'logical' thing to do and trust your instincts?

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot.

[ColdSteel]

Instincts are simply the accumulation of experience. There's nothing fuzzy or magical about them, and they aren't invalid.

[Antinome]

Whenever I get that sick feeling, and ignore it because the odds the pot is laying me are so good, I end up regretting wasting the money.

I only one or two table, so I get some sick, detailed reads.

I feel crippled without them.

[FastPlaySlow]

I don't think AQs comes over the top like that. I put a TAP on AA/KK/QQ/AKs/AKo/AQs, and I'd eliminate the AKs/AKo if he'd lead with two to act behind him. I dunno, I felt like you were beat too, but I'd get stacked.

[limit refugee]

I haven't read the book yet, but there was some interesting comments in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=plnlpoker&Number=7340243& Searchpage=1&Main=7339473&Words=blink&topic=&Searc h=true#Post7340243) in HSNL about the book Blink (http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/0316172324) that got my attention andreally hit home with me.

Basically, our brain sums up visual clues and patterns faster than we can even interpret them. That is your instinct and some people are very good with it. I've become alot more aware of this since I switched to NL, as the exceptions to normal patterns stand out alot more than in limit. While I sure as heck don't look into my low limit opponents souls through my computer screen, I'll go with my gut often when something doesn't feel right. The situation doesn't come up often, but the times I've gotten to see the opponents cards, I've usually been happy with the choice.

Who know anything about how these brain things work, but it's pretty neat. Looking forward to reading the book.

[Heine]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm just curious how often the grinders here ignore the 'logical' thing to do and trust your reads?

[/ QUOTE ]

I play only 2-3 tables, only 3 after i have a couple of reads at the first two tables. So reads are huge part of my play.

[King Spew]

I go by 'feel' several times a session, but just once I would like my two-outer to come home. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

BTW, on the Micro tables, I would not put villain on AA as a first choice. I see alot more JJ and TT with a larger than normal PFR than AA.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I go by 'feel' several times a session, but just once I would like my two-outer to come home. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

BTW, on the Micro tables, I would not put villain on AA as a first choice. I see alot more JJ and TT with a larger than normal PFR than AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear ya. I really can't stress that this isn't something that happens every day. And I normally would never narrow something down to one hand. I normally give hand ranges and stuff to opponents. Its just the exceptions that I'm focusing on here. The times where something goes off in your brain and you feel certain about something more then you think you can.

With this player, he was raising the usual 5-6%. His raises were entirely conisistant throughout the night. Enough so that the extra bb or 2 seemed so pronounced.

I think if I was reading someone else post this, I would argue that they're giving to narrow a range. And yet, it was one of those times I felt entirely certain in my gut I was right. I'm so ingrained to think (ONE could do this with small PP, AK, etc.) which is why I overrode my instinct and played it the crappy way I did. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

There's not much strategy here though... but I agree with what the other person said that we can be picking stuff up that we aren't even aware of. I think a lot of good players (particularly live) can do real well listening to that voice.

[EMc]

Not as often as I should

[carnivalhobo]

as long as im not on tilt, feel is goot.

[4_2_it]

I use my reads to interpret the PA HUD stats that are available and then make a decision.

Most decisions are pretty obvious, but if I am torn, I usually give more weight to a recent read or behavior than a PA HUD statistic.

[quarkncover]

Kurto-

It is very important to trust your reads.

Often the problem with beginning players, at the micro stakes levels, is that their experience and knowledge may help with reads, but their reads are way off and quite possibly swayed by results oriented thinking.

That is why the SSNL forum has (for quite some time) advocated a more formulaic ABC approach to play. This is why we tell you to go broke in your KK example vs. most opponents.

BUT, you had a very strong read. With over 4k posts I have a feeling you have played a good amount of poker and have the requisite experience to go with, and trust your reads. So don't be afraid to.

On a side note, anyone who hasn't read this awesome post by ZeeJustin, please take the time to: ZeeJustin's HSNL post on logical vs. instinct players (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7339473&an=0&page=0&gone w=1#UNREAD)

[mudbuddha]

and please know the difference between a read

knowing and hoping are 2 different things

if u catch my drift

[gimmetheloot]

~80%

Reads are hella important.

[Galilee]

I think a certain nervous apprehension sets in whenever you have kings and face action pre-flop. You start thinking, 'is this the day I run into aces?' Especially when you get re-raised and you start crediting your opponent with the same standards that you have: 'well, he must know that only aces or kings are going to be good enough here ...'

Anyway, I can't see how someone making a 6bb bet = aces, even if it is the first time he's done it. You need more info from later streets to get a genuine read.

Galilee

PS - I always try and get it all-in pre-flop with kings. I figure I won't give up much in the long run doing this, at $25NL at least ...

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a certain nervous apprehension sets in whenever you have kings and face action pre-flop. You start thinking, 'is this the day I run into aces?' Especially when you get re-raised and you start crediting your opponent with the same standards that you have: 'well, he must know that only aces or kings are going to be good enough here ...'

Anyway, I can't see how someone making a 6bb bet = aces, even if it is the first time he's done it. You need more info from later streets to get a genuine read.

Galilee

PS - I always try and get it all-in pre-flop with kings. I figure I won't give up much in the long run doing this, at $25NL at least ...

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've said earlier, I would normally be posting exactly what you're writing. Normally I'm licking my lips when I have kings and there's action in front of me. People raise all different amounts.

The difference here is I was sitting at this table for over 2 1/2 hours. (actually, now that I'm thinking about it, more like 4 hours... I sometimes like to pretend I play less hours then I do)

I am the first to admit it sounds ridiculous on its own. Its only after hours of playing at this table with this guy that It hit me.

[matrix]

I trust my reads 100% of the time - everytime.

if my gut is screaming at me to make a certain play in defiance of the accepted poker logic 2p2 etc - I go with my gut and not with the math.

everytime.


Yes I am hopelessly wrong sometimes, but more often than not my read is right - and the more I play and the more I watch and learn and improve my play the more often my reads are right.

I think about it this way - we have 2 minds. a concious mind and a subconcious one. Allegedly the subconcious is much much much more powerful than the concious mind - we train our concious mind to remember odds charts, what to do in x or y situation against this or that villain in Late or Early position with these or those cards.

While we play some part of our sub-concious mind is taking everything in, noticing patterns and every so often it notces something wrong so it alerts you the only way it can by giving you a good kick in the guts.

I have always followed my reads/"gut instincts" 100% and I always will.

[SuperPokerJedi]

My friend and I played Poker all Summer. We blacked out the natural daylight by putting special curtains over the windows with nails hammered into the wall. We played 3-5k hands a day. We worked our rolls from the lowest limit up and up and up and up and up and up and up... We slept, ate, breathed Poker. Did not see our friends or family. Only talked to people online... about Poker...

After 3 months we had to leave. When we took the curtains down; do you know the only that we saw written to the wall that stood opposite our desks?:










"Go with your f***ing reads!"








If we had done that we would have made much $, and I am sure we attained $ we shouldn't or couldn't w/o doing so.





Prahlad in the WSOP 2006 had a ridic read on Jamie Gold when tested for 750k on the River (1/3 of his stack!) He said he'd been playing "on instict all tourney" but unfortunately laid his better hand.



Instinct is everything in this game - go with it!

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Prahlad in the WSOP 2006 had a ridic read on Jamie Gold when tested for 750k on the River (1/3 of his stack!) He said he'd been playing "on instict all tourney" but unfortunately laid his better hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just watched that episode last night. "Last time you made that exact bet with King High."

The funny thing is, when I was watching that, Jamie Gold was acting VERY differently then when he was ahead. I don't play a lot live so I'm no expert on live reads but I was struck by how obvious I thought Jamie was. He clearly didn't want to be called. He didn't keep talking about how he had Prahlad beat like he did to all the other players they showed us when he was beating. I was really expecting him to call.

[ymu]

I trust my reads, but often do my best to ignore them when I want to think I'm ahead.

The last time I ignored my preflop read, confirmed by flop action, that villain had AA I managed to river quad queens, but it is probably the worst hand I have ever played (lots of competition for that one). I knew exactly what he had from the moment he raised preflop, I still knew it when I reraised his check-raise on the flop, and was absolutely certain when I called AI on the turn. This is made worse by the fact that I started out with KQ ...

Sometimes, you do get a very strong read from preflop action (usually that it's AA), but I think it's also important not to confuse reads with worst case scenarios. QQ-AA are often indistinguishable preflop and post-flop it's easy to convince yourself that a TAG villain has exactly what you don't want him to have. It's fairly rare that you can truly narrow it down to one hand, so a WAWB approach based on ranges is usually best.

The worst thing you could do, IMO, is internalise this experience to the extent that you become weak tight in similar situations in the future. Sometimes, we only think of these things as "reads" after the fact when we're actually just picking out one of scenarios that we considered whilst the hand was progressing. Plenty of times I've played or watched a hand convinced that villain had AA, or the nut straight or whatever and he flipped over something completely different (or folded where I expected him to push).

[T.J. Combo]

The last time I had AA vs. KK with me holding KK and the last time I was set over set AA vs. my 55, I knew it. I knew it, but that didn't keep me from blowing my money.

I knew deep down in my gut that I was running against aces both hands and could only find the all in button. Weird how that works.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I trust my reads, but often do my best to ignore them when I want to think I'm ahead.

The last time I ignored my preflop read, confirmed by flop action, that villain had AA I managed to river quad queens, but it is probably the worst hand I have ever played (lots of competition for that one). I knew exactly what he had from the moment he raised preflop, I still knew it when I reraised his check-raise on the flop, and was absolutely certain when I called AI on the turn. This is made worse by the fact that I started out with KQ ...

Sometimes, you do get a very strong read from preflop action (usually that it's AA), but I think it's also important not to confuse reads with worst case scenarios. QQ-AA are often indistinguishable preflop and post-flop it's easy to convince yourself that a TAG villain has exactly what you don't want him to have. It's fairly rare that you can truly narrow it down to one hand, so a WAWB approach based on ranges is usually best.

The worst thing you could do, IMO, is internalise this experience to the extent that you become weak tight in similar situations in the future. Sometimes, we only think of these things as "reads" after the fact when we're actually just picking out one of scenarios that we considered whilst the hand was progressing. Plenty of times I've played or watched a hand convinced that villain had AA, or the nut straight or whatever and he flipped over something completely different (or folded where I expected him to push).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not afraid of being weak tight. I lost my kings to aces tonight to and thought there was a good chance he had aces but wasn't going to lay them down. The hand I posted was really based on a specific situation last night. I have no doubt I'll get Kings again all in pf when I can many times over. The hand posted was just one of those times when I felt it.

[munkey]

[ QUOTE ]

a read you don't trust is nothing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I need to trust my reads more - they are often pretty good but when I'm in potential spewcity I tend to go for the safer route by not trusting them.

Some more marginal examples:
recently I PFR AK, cbetted HU 2 tone flop - for some resaons I suspected he was on a flush draw - I should bet the turn 2/3 to charge him despite the fact I had Ace high instead of checking.

Another example I held TT in a raised pot vs a maniac type player -lowish rag flop he bet flop, I called/raised-can't remember, I c/r turn but not AI.
He called (so I knew I was likely ahead) but I didn't shove the river (we were ~150bbs)when my read said I was ahead - he had 55.

kurto, I felt similar in two hands recently - one I thought I was prob. beat but he flipped QQ vs my KK AI pflop. I also had KK vs KTs in that session FWIW.