What do you guys "read"?

[Gregatron]

PV does it for me

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
You might want to consider getting the Poker Ace HUD at http://pokeracesoftware.com

It'll automatically show mucked hands w/o having to crack open the HH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy cow this is awesome. At .25/.50 knowing someone has checkraised ever is usefull sometimes, and I wish GT+ could display this. Thanks [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[olliejen]

as an aside, i've been single-tabling 3/6 short & trying to play w/o PT & GT+ so i can develop more meaningful reads about ppl. i think its working well b/c its not boring b/c u play so many hands and you can focus in on how villains play in hands you're not in.

i'm like you, i just try to note quirks about villains like:
FPS; greedy
will slow down when played back @; call down if not sure

or little reminders for myself like
do not try to bluff, will call but will not bet himself. take free cards/showdowns when u want them

or
does not C/R w/o the goods; tho often times i have to go back and adjust notes like this

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
You might want to consider getting the Poker Ace HUD at http://pokeracesoftware.com

It'll automatically show mucked hands w/o having to crack open the HH.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like that a lot

I've never used HUD's before, but it should help when im in multitable autopilot mode get my bonus cleared mode

[@bsolute_luck]

as per Nfinity's suggestion in the first ML Digest: this thread should get more attention. i really think this is an underrated skill here on the boards. why do i say this?

because a majority of the posts here pathetically lack them, if we get any at all. the best they have are stats. a couple reasons for this:

1. Too much reliance on Poker programs
2. Read too much into stats
3. Auto-pilot play because it works
4. Multitabling
5. SSH "told me" and unwillingness to think on your own

why these are bad:
1. you win less
2. doesn't work at higher levels- only against straight forward play
3. a dependency on online play- w/o programs, you fall apart in Live play (B&M)
4. when asking for help, improper advice based on bad reads (or lack thereof) leads to bad conclusions and future bad habits.

another reason possibly is because we at the micro level have resigned ourselves that
1. you can't bluff at the micros because they'll call you down with anything
2. we're happy if we're beating our "level" at xxBB/100 as others tell us that is a good win rate.
3. we'd rather complain about suckouts, bad beats, and people who play any 2 cards than push our minds to actually think if that suckout was actually our fault (making the pot too big where the mistake no longer was a mistake) or did we play our hand wrong.
4. duck our heads and barrel forward because "SSH said i will win X% of times, so i should keep blasting away"

I know a couple people will read this posting and think "bah, who cares?! these people play so much junk, it is impossible to get a read."- do you think it will get easier or harder as you progress?

Start pushing yourselves to develop hand-reading habits now. it doesn't have to be perfect; it isn't going to be easy; you will be wrong sometimes, but anybody can be content with playing 4-5 tables, grinding out 3-4BB/100 at $1/$2 stakes. if you're happy with that: that's fine. don't misunderstand me. but to progress to where the money is: we have got to do better than the little attention that was payed to this important thread, which got more attention from a poker program than actual reads.

why? it is either because people don't see it as that important to win or because people think it is easy- both are bad reasons. i'm going to be looking for some good hands played based on reads- any help is appreciated, but i do know most of Entity's posts all have very good detailed reads prefaced before each hand, so i'd encourage people to start getting examples from there.

[stlip]

[ QUOTE ]

1) What does Villain limp in with?
2) What does V raise pre-flop?
3) What does V cold-call?
4) What will he bet on the flop with (with or without a pre-flop raiser)?
5) Will V bet when checked to him in late position on the flop or turn?
6) What will he check-raise?
7) What will he "wake-up" with?
8) what will he call on the river?
9) Is he tricky on the river?


[/ QUOTE ]


If you're getting most or all of that then you're getting some pretty good reads already.

I try to keep it relatively simple by looking at what plays they seem to have in their repetoire.

I like to try to get a handle on any blind stealing tendencies at the table, anyone who is in love with the play, those who never try it, and who might be ideal victims.

How do they play overcards on a rag flop and how do they play small PP, if they play them at all in most positions.

I'm looking for who will bluff and who seems to fold more readily than average to a bet or a raise.

[Grunch]

[ QUOTE ]
1) What does Villain limp in with?
2) What does V raise pre-flop?
3) What does V cold-call?
4) What will he bet on the flop with (with or without a pre-flop raiser)?
5) Will V bet when checked to him in late position on the flop or turn?
6) What will he check-raise?
7) What will he "wake-up" with?
8) what will he call on the river?
9) Is he tricky on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good, but I think on the wrong track. 2+2ers in general are smart and analytical, and I think that's a common trait ammong successful poker players. So it's not a suprise that this sort of analysis is common among us. But I think that this sort of analysis looks at the trees, and forgets about the forest.

Things like GameTime+ and PokerEdge also are symptoms of this phenomenon. I'm sure they help, but I think there's a low ceiling on how much this sort of magnifying glass analysis can really help.

But these questions don't really address the broad strokes that make up our opponent. When we're looking at a flopped gutshot that was completed on the river and the opponent has been aggressive on every street, we should be asking ourselves, "Does our man's playing style fit this board?" and not, "Does this board fit our man's betting tendancies?"

Even if we could somehow achieve the ultimate in magnifying glass analysis and populate a SSH-style chart that maps out all the actions for all the starting hands for our opponent, we still would be wrong. Everbody mixes up thier play all the time; sometimes on purpose, very often not on purpose. An opponent may see an opportuntity to execute some play that's different from his norm, might be on tilt, might want "revenge" for a bad beat, or might be outplaying you. But the chart would be wrong.

I like to ask questions that are much more general than this. Things like:

Is the opponent passive or aggressive preflop?
Is he loose or tight preflop?
Is he passive or aggressive with draws postflop? Is he loose with draws?
Does he overvalue maginal hands?

And other questions which become apparent by watching our opponent play.

[akebono]

I'm definitely amongst the minority here as I still only single-table.

When I do single table, I also try to make a note of which players are multi-tabling. My assumption is that the players who are multi-tabling will be more distracted and more likely to use default plays. My blind-steal range for multi-tablers is a bit wider than for people who I think are paying closer attention. I also generally mark multi-tablers as skilled players so I have a bit more respect for their bets. (i.e. I assume they operate preflop according to the SSHE charts and are either value betting or betting to protect. I don't expect a lot of bluffing to be in their default strategy.)

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
I like to ask questions that are much more general than this. Things like:

Is the opponent passive or aggressive preflop?
Is he loose or tight preflop?
Is he passive or aggressive with draws postflop? Is he loose with draws?
Does he overvalue maginal hands?

And other questions which become apparent by watching our opponent play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree Grunch, I think my questions may seem too "specific" but I generally use this info to help me fill out the broader, more important question. If I see my opponent cold-call with J7o I'm automatically putting him in some sort of loose pre-flop category. If he doesn't pre-flop raise with KK or QQ, I'm automatically labelling him in my mind as passive preflop. Thus my specific note actually covers a broad range for the opponent.

Same with post-flop play. If I see someone raise/the flop with a flush draw or a middle pair plus gutshot, I'm putting him as aggressive. If he's calling down with pocket 6's, he's in my mind passive and a good value bet candidate on the river.

I think we're talking about the same thing here but getting there differently, do you agree?

[Grunch]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we're talking about the same thing here but getting there differently, do you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree. But we are going in opposite directions to get to the same goal. Your specific questions go from the inside out (trees to forest), whereas my questions go from the outside in (forest to trees).

I know that my approach works better for me, and I'm a very analytical person. I suspect that my approach would work better for a lot of people, but I wouldn't say that my way is "right". A lot of this comes from the fact that I think that many 2+2ers are far too reliant on stats, PT, GT+ and the like, when all the information they need is sitting in the seat next to them.

I see I'm about to ramble in soap-box mode, so hang on...

Here's an example. Suppose you have 50 hands on the opponent UTG, and his stats are 20/15. Think you know your man? Now suppose he opens for a raise UTG, then hands plays out, and he shows down Q9s. How do you feel about your stats now? Is he a LAGgy guy who has been cold-decked for 50 hands? Is he a TAG on tilt? Is he a donkey who is totally clueless? According to the stats, he's a fearful opponent. According to his actual play, he's still a bit unknown. A couple more hands will reveal his true nature far quicker than stats or other details-oriented analysis will.

End of rambling.