[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]

Then when is a read ever really completely relevant by these standards? Never.

[/ QUOTE ]
Online, after 70 hands, it is never correct to think that you can put some on a tight range with 99% accuracy. This is not a slight on you, it is impossible, for anyone.

[ QUOTE ]

I had not played with this guy before, but I was very confident as to what he had. Seriously, I was 99% sure of his range especially after he open raised a UTG limp.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have raised an UG limp with 77, I have also gone 70 hands while playing only 2 hands. My point isn't that you are wrong. You are most likely correct. The problem is with the degree of certainty you are giving your range. 99% is ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]

Here are some interesting things to think about:

During those 70 hands he had 5000 chips+ the entire time, well over 50-100x the big blind over the course of 3 levels. Did he loosen up whatsoever? Absolutely not. What does this tell you about his play?

[/ QUOTE ]

That he has only been dealt 2 hands that he found playable.

[ QUOTE ]

If a player is going to be raising hands like KT+ or Ax UTG, UTG+1, UTG+2, MP1 there's a really good chance he would've had a hand in that range sometime in the 32 hands he was dealt in those positions. When you include any pair above sixes, we're talking about something like 15-20% of all hands. There's like a 60-70% chance he would've shown SOME strength before, particularly with a big stack. He had not. As I said, he was involved in like 2 hands prior to this, and both were not shown down. This player not only had a tight image, he had table respect too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'm a little lost here. Your stats seem to prove my point more than anything. 70% chance he would have been more active if he had a loose range, alright. So how exactly to we get to 99% certainty from there?

Your points about his stack size and table respect aren't really relevant. Their are tons of players who tighten up a lot when they have a big stack, and progressively get looser as the blinds go up. That is pretty much the 'old school' way of thinking about tournaments. As for his table respect, unless you are chatting with the table, you imagined that part. He played 2 hands, and won without showdown, that tells us nothing. Secondly, wouldnt having 'table respect' make a player more likely to raise an UG limper with less than a premium hand?


**Again, I am not saying you were 'wrong' in the conclusion you came to. All signs point to this guy being tight. The problem is, you have to leave some margin for error, b/c sans physical tells, putting someone one a range, is largely a probability question, and you do not have enough information to reach your degree of certainty. In fact, you were 'right', but my point is that you wont be 'right' 99-100 times. I think anything more than 80% for a tight range like this is a mistake.