how to make a correct read on a bettor vs. a LAG

[thedarknight]

i am glad that Ed wrote this article on the "bettor" because I believe I have incorrectly labeled the bettor as a LAG. what are the subtle differences between a LAG and the bettor? And how would you present yourself with the correct read and readjust your game.

[ilovebadbeats]

I too, would like a little more specifcs/clarification...

I am striving to succeed at 6 max games (I have 1/100th the experience at 6-max as I do at full ring...).

Nice that Ed is helping us "defeat" a different type of opponent in each of his 6-max articles...the "caller/calling station" (as talked about in the last 6-max article) you beat by bet-bet-betting at him, all day long...(even with seemingly weak hands - you WANT him calling you)

The "bettor" you defeat by not raising him the way you would a normal opponents and let him keep betting at you ("walking into the noose") and you do the calling (and reserve the raise for the river, maybe (depending on the possibilities the board makes for a hand and your hand strength - and hope he calls).

My question would be: Can you provide me/us with a general opponent classifcation system (that's VERY simple) that we can use to quickly classify and employ the proper strategy to defeat opponents at 6-max?
We have:
the calling station (who is passive but calls and shows down waay too much),
the bettor (who bets all the time to try to buy small pots or bets WHENEVER he is checked to/senses weakness of any kind, BUT is capable
of making sharp money-saving folds if raised...)...
and...
WHO else we got who inhabits these games?

I don't like the classifcation system of:
Loose-passive,
loose-aggressive,
tight-passive,
tight-aggressive...(and all the varying degress of each)
because
it seems (at least for me anyway) that it's easy to confuse these terms and tough to remember
(esp. when playing multiple tables) exactly what everyone you're playing against is...
(passive is often confused w/ tight too, etc. AND sometimes a TAG might be mis-labeled by you as a Loose-AG just b/c he's caught a run of cards, etc.).

I much better like the 1 word classifications Ed is providing - easy to remember, easy to remember what strategy to use to beat them...
Caller,
Bettor.

So you can be a "Winner." (lol - that's pretty bad, but say you get my point...)

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]



My question would be: Can you provide me/us with a general opponent classifcation system (that's VERY simple) that we can use to quickly classify and employ the proper strategy to defeat opponents at 6-max?
We have:
the calling station (who is passive but calls and shows down waay too much),
the bettor (who bets all the time to try to buy small pots or bets WHENEVER he is checked to/senses weakness of any kind, BUT is capable
of making sharp money-saving folds if raised...)...
and...
WHO else we got who inhabits these games?

I don't like the classifcation system of:
Loose-passive,
loose-aggressive,
tight-passive,
tight-aggressive...(and all the varying degress of each)
because
it seems (at least for me anyway) that it's easy to confuse these terms and tough to remember
(esp. when playing multiple tables) exactly what everyone you're playing against is...
(passive is often confused w/ tight too, etc. AND sometimes a TAG might be mis-labeled by you as a Loose-AG just b/c he's caught a run of cards, etc.).

I much better like the 1 word classifications Ed is providing - easy to remember, easy to remember what strategy to use to beat them...
Caller,
Bettor.

So you can be a "Winner." (lol - that's pretty bad, but say you get my point...)

[/ QUOTE ]

The player's styles aren't black and white. The varying degrees of classification is unavoidable. Didn't Tom Hanks say it were easy everyone would be doing it("A League of Their Own")? Referring to a player as a bettor or caller is specific to the hand. On one hand player 'A' may be the bettor while on another he is the caller. The better players are capable of switching from one to the other.
So if you want to be a consistent winner you better learn to profile players by placing them into their proper classifications.

[yukoncpa]

I can spot a calling station instantly by looking at his stats on PokerAce. Do better's have obvious tell-tale stats?

[thedarknight]

i don't have pokerace
possibly someone who bets the flop frequently..more aggro preflop and flop. but won't go to the showdown as often. may fold the turn often with overcards too.

[ilovebadbeats]

Not to be rude, but you totally misunderstood my whole post and point.

There are players that "are capable" of certain things/plays, while other
opponents are not capabale of those things (e.g., some players attempt to buy every
pot by betting whether they have a hand or not, while others would never (or would rarely ever) bet without having a made hand that they are protecting. Others might be capable of semi-bluff raising a flush draw or OESD, while other players would never
semi-bluff raise one of these hands.)

A "Bettor" is not "the person that just made a bet in that hand that you are in" (as you are saying), the
"Bettor" classification (as both Ed and myself are talking about) is
a player that tends to bet a lot or on every occasion in which he thinks
he might be able to fold out the remaining player(s) in the hand (whether he has a made hand or not) - BUT will fold sharply and quicky to any resistance
put up by a tight player (such as yourself) indicating that you have a hand.
This is why, against this type player, you want him to think he has the chance of making you fold for as long as possible in order
to get more "bluff" bets out of him. Your read has to be good, true - AND you must also weight the
cost of letting the bettor "walk into the noose" Vs. giving away cheap cards/not protecting your hand, but
you make more bets off this specific opponent more often than not.
And HU against this type opponent, there is no real reason to raise him if you have a decent holding. You want to take his money, not make him fold.

The "caller" is the guy who hardly ever folds anything ever and frequently shows down weak hands (and not "the guy that just called that bet").

No kidding there are varying degrees. But there are players that are of the degree (in whatever the case may be)
in which you can apply
one of the classification terms of Caller or Bettor to.
My point was that having a bunch of jumbled
gobble-dee-gook
classifications of: this guy is slightly loose-passive, and that guy is
aggressive and loose pre-flop, but very tight post flop. These classifcations
take longer to make (you have to be in many more hands w/a guy to make these very specific labels), but you can identify someone as a "caller" or "Bettor" after a few hands and quickly
employ Ed's strategy to beat them - something that you have to be able to do
in Online poker to win a lot of BBs/100 (with everyone table-hopping and your often
encountering of players whom you've never seen before).

Good players can't be labeled - you're right. Again - no sh*t, thanks for stating the glaringly obvious ( are you quoting out of a poker book you're reading?)
A "good player" is unpredictable and mixes his play. It is necessary to
recognize who the good players are, and the "Good player" cat. is another one to add to my list.

As for your last line, don't assume someone is not a consistent winner. Or assume that I need to "learn" something. That's pretty condescending.

Based on your last post I could assume you are an idiot who likes to state the obvious and watch feel-good heartwarming chick-flicks in his spare time...but that would be rude.

I could also guarantee you, based on your post alone, that I could "take" your money by playing you in any form of poker that you think you are good at - seriously, I could say that, but that would be rude of me...

[SlantNGo]

I encountered a "bettor" tonight. I'm not sure if he matched Ed's definition of a "bettor", but that's what I called him. He was overaggressive pre-flop and open-raised way too often in the CO. His AF was extraordinarily high, but I didn't see him raise often. I came to the conclusion that he either bets or folds. By his high PFR, I was able to take advantage of a few ragged flops in blind defense, donking and watching him fold. I was also able to watch him bet into me repeatedly with Ace high. But I only saw him raise once or twice postflop in a 40-minute session.