NLHTP#24 Concepts&Weapons: 11-12

[wallenborn]

Concept #11: A big bet is the most relevant and accurate information available.

[ QUOTE ]
When reasonable players make extremely big bets on the turn or river, and you're trying to figure out what they have, all information from the past takes a backseat to the fact that they've make a big bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Concept #12: Be wary of overcallers.

[ QUOTE ]
When someone makes a substantially-sized bet, and there's a call and an overcall, often the overcaller almost has to have a very strong hand (assuming the overcaller is a competent player).

[/ QUOTE ]

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
(assuming the overcaller is a competent player).

[/ QUOTE ]

The hardest part of micro NL is figuring out if the player is competent.

My thought process is usually, "is he dumb enough to have called with X."

When I lose, it usually from give players too much credit... rarely from giving them too much. (in other words, based on action and I'm facing a river bet... my thought processes go something like, "is this player bad enough to have called with an inside straight draw?" (assuming that's the only thing that could have beat me at this point).

The reason I say this concept is almost meaningless at many $50 tables and below....

[Red_Diamond]

In the world of stud though, I LOVE over-callers when I have a 5-card made hand. I don't dare raise a river bet if I fear it will get the others behind me to fold.

[SimaoMacaco]

[ QUOTE ]
The hardest part of micro NL is figuring out if the player is competent.

[/ QUOTE ]

agree totally.. when villain bets all three streets on coordinated board and then show KQo for paired KKs i know which bracket to put him in. Unfortunately, the bad players arrive quick.. go broke quick.. so getting good information fast enough is tough.

To some extent it is relevant even at micro.. if you know a regular and think they are reasonably ABC.

[wallenborn]

[ QUOTE ]
The hardest part of micro NL is figuring out if the player is competent.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case weak-tight is probably sufficient. When it's three-handed i like a donk do the oop betting and weak-tight players between him and me. Their preflop calls have made the pot bigger, and if any of them calls, i know i have to be careful and didn't even have to pay for this information.

[wallenborn]

Concept #11: Obligatory Pokey reference.

I think this applies to many bad players, too. Bayes' theorem tells you that there's two reasons to take a big bet seriously: 1. if the conditional probability distribution is sharp (this is what Sklansky says: if he is someone who would never bring out the big guns without having the ammo for them), but also 2. if the prior probability distribution is very fuzzy. That's (mostly bad) players you can't put on a narrow range from their preflop actions. With these players you have to listen to what they tell you with their postflop actions.