Lost in the forums and looking for something specific...

[Vorlin]

When you're trying to find something specific, you can get so buried in information that isn't quite right that you get yourself lost... and I'm there.

I'm looking for an approach to hand reading that considers the sequence of bets, calls and raises to be a conversation. In it's simplest form, you can look at it this way:

****

2 people see the flop, the first checks... this check could mean "I want to see if I can get a free card", "I have to goods and want to see if I can trap you" or it could mean "I missed entirely, please bet so I can muck this junk".

The second person bets 3x the BB. This could mean "I have a pair and don't want to give you odds to run me down","I may or may not have anything but I think you missed and want you to quit" or it could mean "I'm going to ruin your drawing odds every chance I get. Just fold now if you're on a draw because I'll make it wrong for you to call on every street". The person could also be on a draw and trying to disguise their hand.

****

Everywhere I look, I see all sorts of tips on hand reading that don't take this approach. We all know that the sequence of bets, raises and calls form a story but has anyone taken the time to try to relate them into potential phrases that would tell that story?

Thanks,

Vorlin

[AKQJ10]

Well, in essence I take your "conversation" approach to be a representation of what's going on. Any decent book NLHE should cover the different possibilities you mention. Are you saying that the novelty here is rendering this "conversation" in plain English instead of in bet sizes? I don't see how that changes much, other than adding a possibly useful metaphor.

Incidentally, the conversation metaphor points out the contrasts between poker and a partnership game like bridge. In bridge, your primary aim of the conversation is to communicate with your partner, not to deceive the opponents. In poker, you have no one with which to communicate affimatively. Your only "conversation" is a stunted one because its purpose is deception. You say, "I can beat top pair," but you really only want to be believed when you're lying.

[Vorlin]

[ QUOTE ]
.... Any decent book NLHE should cover the different possibilities you mention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, they do so only in the most rudimentary sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that the novelty here is rendering this "conversation" in plain English instead of in bet sizes?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the idea is to be able to apply this to many hands in there entirety, helping people to better understand the possible meanings behind each action depending on the situation.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how that changes much, other than adding a possibly useful metaphor.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that it changes anything at all... rather, it can lead to additional insight and understanding. Poker is, after all, a game of information... and the better you understand the meanings, truthful or deceptive, of any action then the better armed you will be when you have to make a decision.

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, the conversation metaphor points out the contrasts between poker and a partnership game like bridge. In bridge, your primary aim of the conversation is to communicate with your partner, not to deceive the opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]
True again... but it's just as much of a conversation as Bridge... and often times we are not trying to decieve at all. Such times include defending top pair or playing a draw as cheply as possible. Most opponents aren't knowledgeble enough when it comes to the more subtle nuances and it's only after you become familiar with some of them that the more advanced plays begin to make sense.

[ QUOTE ]
In poker, you have no one with which to communicate affimatively.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by "affirmitavely" but we are communicating with any and every one who has a live hand with our every action.

[ QUOTE ]
Your only "conversation" is a stunted one because its purpose is deception. You say, "I can beat top pair," but you really only want to be believed when you're lying.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, there are far more purposes than deception. For example, if you check to me on the flop and I hammer it hard enough to take away your drawing odds then I'm probably not trying to decieve you at all... I have top pair and I don't want you to draw out on me. A large enough bet to ruin your odds says that pretty clearly.

However, there are many times when actions only make sense when strung together. What about a check raise on the flop followed by betting out only 1/3 of the pot on the turn? I've made such moves and had people look me dead in the eye and tell me to stop pulling on their nipples because they're not a cow. The actions, when taken together, communicate that I'm milking them and they know it.

So, how many other nuances are there out there? Has anyone thought about it or tried to interperet hands this way to see what the actions really meant? The only way to be sure is if we know all the hole cards because then we can see the attempts at deception for what they are and, by examining the patterns, it may become easier to spot deception when it happens right before your eyes as you play out a hand.

Poker is a game of information but that information comes from incomplete sources... so we need to be able to make the most of every source of information we can get. I started seeing these kind of patterns in games I played and then started to pay attention to what I was saying as I played. Also, Matt Lessinger's "Book of Bluffss" looks about as deeply as anything into how these actions can combine to tell a story... so I'm simply trying to take it beyond that and ferret out whatever info I can find.

Unfortunately, it's a narrow subject that could have bits and pieces hidden throught the vast library of material here and I was beginning to get dizzy as I waded through various forums, trying to find those bits and pieces that I seek. So, I thought I'd simply open my mouth and ask if anyone knew of any such posts that they would be kind enought to direct me to.

Maybe, maybe not. But it never hurts to ask.

Vorlin

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
So, how many other nuances are there out there? Has anyone thought about it or tried to interperet hands this way to see what the actions really meant?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what everyone is doing, though they may be calling it something different. The whole hand and situation is a story, putting together the pieces, having a conversation, etc.... it all means the same thing. You're using inductive reasoning to draw conclusions from the available information.

[ QUOTE ]
However, there are many times when actions only make sense when strung together. What about a check raise on the flop followed by betting out only 1/3 of the pot on the turn? I've made such moves and had people look me dead in the eye and tell me to stop pulling on their nipples because they're not a cow. The actions, when taken together, communicate that I'm milking them and they know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, a good adjustment would be to occasionally bluff in this spot.

If you wanted to mess around with it, you could write a mess of them up in a notebook... think them through a bit and you could probably figure out a few ideas. Generally though, different players follow different lines somewhat, so I would place more of an emphasis on that.

I play against a particular player who has a this thing he does on the river (NLHE). OOP, he bets about 40% the pot when he has the nuts, when he missed his draw, or when he's got a vulnerable, but good hand. That bet can be interpreted as three different sentences.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, there are far more purposes than deception. For example, if you check to me on the flop and I hammer it hard enough to take away your drawing odds then I'm probably not trying to decieve you at all...

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I want you to induce you to call without odds to do so. So I might bet the absolute minimum to take away your odds, if I think you'll call only that, or I might bet more if I think you'll call. "Hammering" the pot indiscriminately is a big mistake.

But more to the point, while I may need to play top pair that way against an obvious draw, playing only top pair in such a mechanical fashion gives up a huge information leak. So I'm going to play my own draws in the same way, or middle pair, or unimproved AK. If I happen to play TPTK in that way, I'm saying, "I have top pair," true. But I'm also saying, "I have top pair" when I don't. By playing a particular hand straightforwardly, I allow myself to play other hands deceptively.

Of course I'd rather take down the pot than give you correct odds to draw, so in that case mechanical straightforward play could be correct. But if you're a good player, I don't know what odds I need to deny you. Do you have a flush draw? Middle pair? A gutshot? Pocket treys?