Categorizing Opponents: Method of Sizing up a Table?

[carddown]

Sometimes I have the comfort of playing against local regulars, but often I'm confronted by unknowns. I'm looking for a technique to aid me in categorizing my opponents in B&M games. The ineffective way I do it now is to observe the early action when I join the table and see who seems dangerous. This leads to me obsessing on the actions of 2 or 3 players and missing the threat from the other seats.

My tiny brain needs a filing system to handle the behaviors and betting patterns of nine other players. I'm sure some people are naturals at organizing this data, but I have to work at it. Any suggestions or reading recommendations for help would be greatly appreciated

[Tom Ames]

Good question. I'm not so sure that focusing so intensely upon a couple of players is the best approach--unless they are indeed the only players at the table that you're not already familiar with.

My guess is that employing more of a "soft focus" approach might be more productive. That is, rather than looking for so much detail on a few players, try to take a broader view of the table and become more aware of out-of-the-ordinary actions that arise.

If you haven't seen this , take a look and see if the same sort of phenomenon might be happening to you.

[davebwell]

Phil Hellmuth's book Play Poker Like the Pros is highly criticized for the strategic advice he gives for hold em but I found his player types categories to be very helpful. The types are a mouse who is very timid and cautious, an elephant- goes too far with hands rarely folds and isn't very aggressive, a jackal- very reckless and aggressive, bets anytime it is checked to him, raises often and plays a lot of marginal hands but always aggressively and a lion (I think) - aggressive and highly selective in his play. To this day I still type player notes that only say "Jackal" or what have you.

[Gonso]

Just get a general sense of what's going on. Who's open-limping? Who's c-betting every flop? What kind of hands are being shown down? How many see flops? Which players are active and which aren't?

Forget the animals. LAGs, TAGs, maniacs, calling stations, tight-weak players are all I'm really trying to sort out at first. I'm looking for the tendencies of the weaker players most often, since that's where the most money comes from. You have to take in everything as best you can, of course, but it's easier to identify and exploit the mistakes of bad players.

[Harv72b]

Everyone who plays poker falls into one of two categories: loose, or tight. And everyone who plays poker falls into another one of two categories: passive, or aggressive. Don't concern yourself with "neutral".

So the first thing you want to look at is whether a player is loose or tight. Generally speaking, if he's seeing more than 25% of the flops (including times he posts the blind), he's loose. In a typical B&M small stakes game, most of your opponents will be loose.

Now look at how often he bets or raises vs. how often he calls. If he calls more often than betting (or raising), he's passive. If he likes to take the lead & push his made hands, he's aggressive. We're not talking about when he's holding the nuts or something close to it; rather, things like betting or raising with "just" top pair.

Once you've classified an opponent as tight/passive, tight/aggressive, loose/passive, or loose/aggressive, then you can start looking for more detailed information. Things like raising on a draw, check/raising the field, playing position well (or not), etc. The players on either extreme (calling stations, maniacs, rocks, etc) are generally so obvious in their behavior that it shouldn't take you more than an orbit or two to identify them.

[carddown]

Tom, I checked out that link- I'd seen that clip in a presentation by Michael Shermer from Skeptic magazine. They call it Inattentional blindness, but I've heard of it referred to as isolation of interest by magicians. This is something that I capitalize on at the table. I sit there quietly between the gunslingers and carnival barkers and just wait for a chance to jump out of the shadows and pounce. It's the quiet ones you never thought to watch out for.

My guess is that employing more of a "soft focus" approach might be more productive. That is, rather than looking for so much detail on a few players, try to take a broader view of the table and become more aware of out-of-the-ordinary actions that arise.

Good idea, I've noticed that every table seems take on a life of its own, and players may take on "roles" exhibiting behavior quite different from their normal playing style.

[KenProspero]

FWIW, here's what I do when I sit down at a table (small stakes)

First, every time someone shows their cards, you have information as to what they'll call pre-flop, raise, call raises, etc. It doesn't take too many hands to categorize most of the table.

Second, who is driving the action (raising), who is just calling. If someone call a lot then raises -- watch out.

Finally, if you can't get the entire table, start by focusing on the players who have large stacks. They may be the better players (but then again they may be lucky fish). After that, pay attention to anyone you think did something REALLY stupid. Determine whether it was a one-off (might just be a bluff) or whether they live at the Aquarium.

Finally, anyone who doesn't stand out -- assume to be an ABC player.

Not perfect, but seems to work.

[gedanken]

I like the advice to pay a little more attention to the two players on my left -- they'll have position on me time after time, so I want to have better mental histories of them.

Next, the player on my right, since I'll be able to exploit his tendencies best.

[evagaba]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the advice to pay a little more attention to the two players on my left -- they'll have position on me time after time, so I want to have better mental histories of them.

Next, the player on my right, since I'll be able to exploit his tendencies best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am the exact opposite. I study the 2 players on my right (chips flow clockwise) and then the 2 players on my left...and then the rest of the table as needed.

[carddown]

Thanks for the responses- I'm getting some good pointers. Just so you know what we're talking about here, I'm the kind of person that can't remember people's names. In live games, I generally do much better with this stuff at a short handed table. The action there is heads up more often, making it easier for me to replay the rounds backwards in my head to analyze the players' methods. With a full table, it is harder for me to sort it out with more players in more hands.

Here is what I think I should be doing:
Scan the table and look for memorable features of each player.
Assign nicknames until names are learned.
Assign probable playing styles based on appearance.
Observe and analyze, continually revising and refining information on each player.
If someone is still a "ghost", probe for information by engaging them in small talk.

This kind of thing is probably intuitive for many good players, but I need a playbook. Am I on the right track?