Stat-reads vs. real reads for multitablers

[Harv72b]

Grunching.

At most times, I'm only playing 3-4 tables, so I consider myself to be a borderline multi-tabler; the guys playing 12 tables at once, they're the real multi-tablers. So perhaps because of that, I was struck by one statement made in your first paragraph:

[ QUOTE ]
But the ones that play 3-4 or even more tables at a time are too busy playing cards to be able to notice what goes on at the table during the hands we folded.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's simply not true, or at least it isn't in my case. So long as my mind isn't wandering (I don't dispute the ADD accusation) to where I'm playing minesweeper or surfing pr0n during hands, I do a pretty good job of taking in all the action on all my tables. I think a big part of that is prioritizing.

If one of my tables is filled with guys that I have hundreds of hands on, then I'm not paying much attention to that game. I instead focus on the other table(s), where I have unknown or less-known opponents; when one of them is involved in a hand that goes to showdown, that's where my old friend the last hand window comes into play. Pop that open, see what he mucked, give a quick look at that hand vs. the board & action, and make a mental note. If it's that unusual (particularly if he bluff raised on a late street), I make a physical note on him.

Honestly, most hands that you play don't really require a whole lot of attention, at least not after you've logged your first 100k hands. The proper decision usually pops into mind immediately, and if it doesn't, then I can almost always make the decision within a second or two by glancing at pot size & the stats on my opponent(s). When I'm still not sure what to do, I open my PAHUD popup window on the aggressor in the hand, which has all kinds of little goodies plugged into it: aggression by street, won @ SD, went to SD, and my personal favorite, won SD when raised turn. Of course if I have any notes on him which I haven't looked at yet in the session, then I'll check those out quickly as well. This may take anywhere from 3-5 seconds, depending on how long it takes me to click the right spot on the table.

I've never bothered doing any detailed analysis on my opponents because, well, I really don't think it's necessary. 99.9999% of opponents can be fairly well shoehorned into a pre-existing definition, such as LAG, calling station, TAG, good TAG, etc; if they ever exhibit any behavior that differentiates from that definition, that's why I have my notes. Often times, as you briefly mentioned with that 75o example, those "reads" can be firmed up over just one or two hands.

As for Everest & other sites where the software doesn't work, well, I still don't think there's much of an adjustment to make other than taking a few more notes. And, of course, to always take the size of the pot into consideration when determining whether to call or fold a late street raise--I've dragged more than a few pots over the years after a loose/passive raised a river scare card, simply because the pot was too big to justify folding for 1 more bet (they do bluff every so often, especially if you've got them frustrated after consantly isolating & value betting them to death).

As far as reasoning, it's mostly a case of simple human psychology (which reminds me, Psychology of Poker--good read). At these stakes in particular, I don't think there's much point in trying to delve any further than the basics, which pretty much tell us that a LAG likes to take risks & is therefore more prone to bluffing postflop & making bad (cold)calls preflop, a rock hates risk & is therefore more likely to go passive (especially preflop) with his big hands, and a calling station hates the thought of ever folding a winner. A TAG we know has at least a passing familiarity of the concepts of +EV poker, and we might actually learn something about him & his style of play by analyzing the hands afterwards...except that I still don't think it's worth it, as we're not making our money off of him (unless he's a bad TAG, in which case all we need to know is that he gets married to hands & doesn't understand position/adjust to his opponents).

One thing that you didn't at all mention in your post but which definitely bears bringing up to is to consider your own image as it relates to the table & specific opponents. If you're stuck, and especially if you're stuck & the whole table just saw you make an unusual play, then you can expect to get more action with your hands than you would if you were running the table over. If you've got 5k hands on an opponent, then you can pretty safely assume that he's got 5k hands on you as well & probably has a decent idea of your style of play. If you're a dumbass like me and play under the same screenname you post here as, then you can expect other 2+2'ers to play a little differently against you based on your posts. If you have been value betting the bejeezus out of a guy, then eventually you can expect him to stop calling (even if he's a calling station)...so that's when you start bluffing against him. Things like that should always factor into your close decisions at the table.

I dunno, I feel like I've rambled forever & haven't really addressed the primary topic at all, but maybe there's something worth reading in all this. At any rate, I have to be up for a 13 hour workday in 6 hours, so I should probably wrap this up.

Excellent topic. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]