What do you guys "read"?

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
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.)

[/ QUOTE ]

hey-
this is one way preconception may be working against you.
i used to think multitablers were sharks.
now i think they are more predictable.
but i don't assume they are not paying attention.
and, much of the time, default plays are default for a reason. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[@bsolute_luck]

The difficulty with reads and being a "numbers" player:

as many players here are, they like meticulous math. working the odds versus outs, pokerstove pot equity down to the exact percentage, and generally bogging down with the nitty-gritty. bordering on "anality".

this becomes a hinderance when trying to make a read. trying to put villain on the EXACT hand he has or remembering exactly each board and how they played the hand. Many players probably give up with reads because of this thinking "my math will save me" and "i'm winning already with the way i play, so i'm fine without the reads".

To read players, a helpful start is self-examination. Take notes of what you think, how you think, how you react to certain situations. When replaying hands, play from a villain's perspective: What would I think I have based on my play if I was villian? Transpose these into your play. Once this becomes easier, that is when you begin to think on a multilevel rather than just straightforward.

Another concept is preferences. Preflop calls, Raises, and Cold calls are made on what the villain likes to play: 2 overcards, suited cards, any Ace, suited overcards. Position and # of players in the hand. Start with working on ranging the preflop play- don't jump into postflop as preflop is the foundation of the hand.

Postflop is also preferences. A number of posts in this thread already address most of them: calling down with, c/r, etc. My encouragement is to ask questions rather than memorize villains every move. Develop a line of questioning as play continues to narrow down the range you put him on preflop.

Face the facts: you will be wrong on your read sometimes. Don't think you can't read people. Adjust. Take notes and put them in to PokerTracker for analysis later. A read is not instantaneous, but a process.

edit: i never did a "pooh-bah dissertation"- not that know enough to do one, but i'll just let this be it [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[akebono]

[ QUOTE ]
i used to think multitablers were sharks.
now i think they are more predictable.
but i don't assume they are not paying attention.
and, much of the time, default plays are default for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Predictability is a very good thing for me. As a single tabler, I rely a lot more on my reads and predictable players make my decisions much easier.

I never said that I thought multi-tablers weren't paying attention. I'm just saying that they're less likely to remember how the table action has been over the last few orbits. I'm sure they'll catch on to any trick that's overused, but I'm not sure if they will notice that I'm treating them differently than other players.

Default plays are designed for default players(mostly loose passives). These plays are definitely profitable for the multi-tablers in the long run but I don't think those profits are coming from me. Almost universally, when players first start to multi-table they take a small hit to their BB/100. I like to think that I'm picking up what they're leaving behind. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Grunch]

I like this post, and I'd like to see more thoughts on this.

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i used to think multitablers were sharks.
now i think they are more predictable.
but i don't assume they are not paying attention.
and, much of the time, default plays are default for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Predictability is a very good thing for me. As a single tabler, I rely a lot more on my reads and predictable players make my decisions much easier.

I never said that I thought multi-tablers weren't paying attention. I'm just saying that they're less likely to remember how the table action has been over the last few orbits. I'm sure they'll catch on to any trick that's overused, but I'm not sure if they will notice that I'm treating them differently than other players.

Default plays are designed for default players(mostly loose passives). These plays are definitely profitable for the multi-tablers in the long run but I don't think those profits are coming from me. Almost universally, when players first start to multi-table they take a small hit to their BB/100. I like to think that I'm picking up what they're leaving behind. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

oh for sure.

and i do it too...like in my "rock" thread where i tried a new line against a player like that. maybe ill-advised in that case though.

[bennyhana]

[ QUOTE ]
edit: i never did a "pooh-bah dissertation"- not that know enough to do one, but i'll just let this be it

[/ QUOTE ]

Works for me. vnh

[aces_dad]

I don't think I note as many specific things as some of the others mentioned, what I really like to do is note anything which seems unusual or exploitable.

Typically like to note their style in the first line of the read.

"LAG/LP/etc - cc's 2 pf a lot".

Then move to specific examples where they were too passive or aggressive:

"On turn/rivel almost always bets when checked to" - helps to set up a c/r against these type of players.

"Called f/t/r with bp / pp lower than board" - Don't try to push these people off the hand with UI overcards.

And always like to note if they 3bet/cap on turn/river with out the nuts or even close to and what they were betting with - these are the people you can win big pots from - "Capped on river with 2 pair on 4 to flush board".

Many people call down with weak draws but I like to note who is raising with them. They can be 3-bet / isolated on the flop when they raise their backdoor draws / bottom pairs.

Like to note what they are willing to c/r with and especially if they will bluff like this - "c/r bluff on turn with UI K7o" - this read is extremly helpful, as most c/r except against habitual bluffers, are scary.

And finally like to note their blind and position play; will they limp first in from LP or are aware of position? Do they defend their blinds too much / not enough?

I'm sure there is more but, mostly this is what I am doing currently when 3-tabling 6max. In general I like to note things which I deem unusual, which would make me deviate from a so called standard play.

[MrWookie]

nh, @_L.

Grunch, it seems to me that the only way to arrive at a forest that doesn't involve stats is by collecting tree samples. Without any preliminary datamining stats from PE or whatever, everyone has to start with trees. All we have is the play of an increasing number of specific hands, and our job is to add that up into a picture of a player. I don't see a good way to arrive at these general tendancies that you're talking about without taking in some details.

Now, every good poker player knows not to try to put an opponent on one specific hand. The good players know to put players on a gradually decresing range of hands as more information becomes available, and the very best players know to possibly add some hands that weren't considered in the original range if things change dramatically. By analogy, we shouldn't automatically can a player into a specific read, which seems to be exactly what you're advocating. As we acquire new specifics, we should narrow or expand our read as appropriate. If I observe that a player has a couple of times donkbet a ragged flop with second pair, crappy kicker into a preflop raiser, but he'll check/raise top pair, it's pretty easy to start to narrow his holdings. Then, however, if I spot him check/raising bottom pair, I have to refine my read and add more hands to his possible ranges when I encounter this situation next. It's a big, broad, dynamic process, and I think that's exactly what you're advocating. Maybe your memory is better than mine, but I know that personally, I'd never be able to come up with a decent dynamic read in this fashion without starting by making some notes on the specifics.

Lastly, I really like having VPIP and PFR stats. They give me a lot of easy information that greatly restricts an opponents possible holdings. They're great, as long as you don't use them in an overly restrictive manner. In your Q9 example, it's just a case of looking at an opponent against whom you'd want to tread carefully, but now you have to add in the possibilities of tilt and/or a stretch of cold cards that happened to a serious LAG. Expand your range, but be on alert to keep narrowing it.

Edit: When I said, "we shouldn't automatically can a player into a specific read, which seems to be exactly what you're advocating," it looks like it didn't come out like I wanted it to. I meant that you're advocating a broad, dynamic read, not the canned read. I think the bulk of my post was agreeing with you, but I get there in the same manner as davelin.

[Grunch]

[ QUOTE ]
By analogy, we shouldn't automatically can a player into a specific read, which seems to be exactly what you're advocating.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by this you mean that I advocate not narrowing down our reads too much, then I agree. Most of my reads end up as something like, "well based on the kind of player he is, he could have two pair, a straight, a busted flush draw..." and then my action is based on this range.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe your memory is better than mine, but I know that personally, I'd never be able to come up with a decent dynamic read in this fashion without starting by making some notes on the specifics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I always felt that my memory was always a hinderance to my success, becasue it's not any better than average - perhaps worse. That's actually why I focus on generalities. There's much less to remember that way.

I think we're in agreement, and just wanted to clarify that we agree.

[Eder]

[ QUOTE ]
One really important note I make of TAGs regard a couple of common but horrendous preflop errors:

Open limping in LP.



[/ QUOTE ]

Open limping late position nice with stronger hands especially if blinds play tight.