How do you decide if a villain is solid? NL

[xSCWx]

I've just been playing out 30-50 hands to see if they do something retarded, and if they haven't I usually leave. I find that it can be tough to differentiate between the good and bad players who are LAG preflop. It makes it more difficult for me to call a hand down when I struggle to put them on a range, and without a showdown I am unable to tell if they are playing smart or not.

I've started datamining with PT a bit but I still don't have enough hands for anything conclusive.

[jay_shark]

I guess all you can do is be honest with yourself , if you feel you're being outplayed or out-decked . In the short-run , it's a tough call to make because you can have a losing session against a weakling and may incorrectly assume that he's better than you .

[MasterLJ]

You aren't looking to see if they are solid or not, you are looking to see if they are exploitable. If after 50+ hands you can't find a trait that you can exploit, you should leave.

[Stealthy]

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't looking to see if they are solid or not, you are looking to see if they are exploitable. If after 50+ hands you can't find a trait that you can exploit, you should leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Even the regs I have played and a number of 2+2ers HU have exploitable weknesses. Either calling 3 bets to light. Bluffing with showdownable hands, double barrelling bad boards etc. There is only one reg I have refused action to and he is the poster I quoted! One day MasterLJ ......

[abcjnich]

Good point masterlj. It might take me +100 hands, but I think everyone is exploitable at some point. Even if someone has been beating me, I can subtly mix it up and exploit them when they think they're exploitng me.

[Scansion]

Things I look for:

-Limping. Usually good players aren't limping and are raising or folding from the SB.

-Retarded drawing. Calling in situations where it's blatantly obvious that they don't have the odds to do so.

-Spontaneous bluffing. If they are showing a trend of it, I can pick up on it pretty easily.

-Straightforward play. Even if they are solid players. I'll definitely love playing them if they don't mix it up. (at the limits I play, I often don't have a choice and if I feel I have an edge against someone I just play them)

-Extremely aggressive play. I'm very aggressive myself. But if someone is going to be very aggressive, I'll be better then them at it. (maniacs often require tightening up, but in general I stay pretty agressive regardless) If they are really showing me that they have an excellent handle on their HU game, I'll congratulate them and find another game.

Judging whether it's more profitable to get up and find another game is a delicate skill that not many have put a lot of thought into. The thing is, it varies from limit to limit, because the higher you play, the smaller of an edge you have to have to stay in the game. I've always said that ironically the most important skills you have to have in HU play, are Game Selection, Bankroll Management, and Tilt Control. Funny that another very important skill also has nothing to do with actual poker strategy. (deciding when/if you are going to quit someone)

[xSCWx]

[ QUOTE ]
Things I look for:

-Limping. Usually good players aren't limping and are raising or folding from the SB.

-Retarded drawing. Calling in situations where it's blatantly obvious that they don't have the odds to do so.

-Spontaneous bluffing. If they are showing a trend of it, I can pick up on it pretty easily.

-Straightforward play. Even if they are solid players. I'll definitely love playing them if they don't mix it up. (at the limits I play, I often don't have a choice and if I feel I have an edge against someone I just play them)

-Extremely aggressive play. I'm very aggressive myself. But if someone is going to be very aggressive, I'll be better then them at it. (maniacs often require tightening up, but in general I stay pretty agressive regardless) If they are really showing me that they have an excellent handle on their HU game, I'll congratulate them and find another game.

Judging whether it's more profitable to get up and find another game is a delicate skill that not many have put a lot of thought into. The thing is, it varies from limit to limit, because the higher you play, the smaller of an edge you have to have to stay in the game. I've always said that ironically the most important skills you have to have in HU play, are Game Selection, Bankroll Management, and Tilt Control. Funny that another very important skill also has nothing to do with actual poker strategy. (deciding when/if you are going to quit someone)

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post. I've noticed limping as a huge green flag as well.

[TNixon]

Why is limping such an indication of a bad player? I've heard a number of people say in the past that if your opponent will let you, you should limp *any* two cards.

Now if you're referring to somebody who limps a lot, and calls the raise when you attack their limps, that's another thing entirely. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

**EDIT**

Clarification: limping any two cards you would otherwise fold. Not limp instead of raising. Big difference there too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[xSCWx]

Assuming that we ourselves are decent players, we won't let them limp with any two. If they continue to do so we have a pretty easy game because they are incapable of putting pressure on us.

Generally speaking, loose passive players tend to be the easiest opponents. It is really easy to pick your spots when you are able to choose when you want to pay.

[jay_shark]

Tnixon that is terrible strategy . It is almost always correct to raise or fold from the sb . There are exceptions to every rule and occasionally you consider limping but not because your hand is worth a limp , but because you believe you can exploit another weakness of his . Perhaps he's a terrible postflop player and you would rather play a pot with him in position .