Sizing up players when just sitting down

[Mygtar]

Just curious how others size up players at a table when you first sit down. Do you assume that they play well until proven otherwise? Or they play badly until otherwise proven? Do you use stereotypes to put them in a general category first then observe to see if they fit?

Also for those that us PT for online play what do you do live without the help of computer generated stats?

I find that I start off slow then after about three hours I can pretty much get the feel. Thanks for the opinions.

Peace,
Mygtar

[BigPoppa]

I assume that everyone is a moderately passive calling station with a decent grasp of starting hand values but little grasp of post-flop play until proven otherwise.

Unless he's wearing wraparound shades, in which case I assume he's a hyper-aggressive tiltmonkey who spews chips post-flop until proven otherwise.

[dwedeking]

I play 4/8 live. Figure everyone is loose passive until shown different. I adjust that based upon what I see in play. Since they are mostly loose passive it doesn't take 3 hours to see enough show downs to adjust my original take on the table.

[habsfanca11]

I'm not a great "live" player yet so take this with a grain of salt - like the others have responded I generally assume all to be somewhat loose, passive, reasonable until proven otherwise.

The first things I look for (sort of in order) are:
Age: Old or young? and I put them in their stereotypical boxes. Old (meaning retired) are tight, nitty and nut peddlers. Yound are generally agressive - what you're looking for in the young ones is extent that they will overplay their hands and bluff factor.
New or regular?: Listen. Do they know others at the table? Do they know the waitresses and dealers? The reason I think this is important is that regulars will check (sometimes) with other (known) regulars - it is not necessarily a sign of weakness. Similarily, they might not checkraise another regular so the donk bet becomes a bet of strength not weakness. He's leading out to let the other regulars know he has a very strong hand.
Chipstacks: can sometimes be an indicator if they are loose or tight. Organized and well stacked - tight; disorganized - loose.

I'll generally start with those observable factors to try and get a better sense of where they are on the following scales: loose or tight; passive or aggressive; do they only bet top pair or better?; will they bluff? Raising standards.

Good thread!

[John49]

There's good and bad players in every ethnicity, gender, and age demo. So a few orbits of attention is prolly the best way to size up a table.

[DeeMo]

[ QUOTE ]
Chipstacks: can sometimes be an indicator if they are loose or tight. Organized and well stacked - tight; disorganized - loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was in Caro's Book of Tells. He also goes on to say that the way a person is sitting in their chair can sometimes clue you in to their mood (tight mode vs. gamble mode).

[Coffee]

I usually assume players are average until proven otherwise. Average typically means a decent concept of starting hands, a somewhat shaky grasp of bet sizing(either too much or too little), and an even shakier grasp of pot odds (will fold or call in improper situations). These days, most people know what a checkraise is, but very few seem to know what it means if they're on the receiving end of it.

Until I've seen some showdowns, and a couple of orbits, I pretty much assume people are going to react like your average player would.

[jfk]

Two things:

Watch what are they doing out of a hand. Are they following the action and filing away information or are they watching the cocktail waitress. If they're always alert to the game you probably have a contender on your hands.

Cold calling frequency. Do they do it a lot or never? If they cold call is it for a good strategic reason? This is easy enough to track preflop to get a sense of their play.

Other than that relying on some of the Caro stereotypes can be very misleading. I loved "Book of Tells" and there's great value in it, but some of the generalizations about stereotypes are fairly dated and are probably going to lead a player astray.

[fishyak]

I only play live and it took me a while to improve my early play at a table. 3 orbits should be enough to get a good handle on your opponents.

1) Caro's book does offer a nice list of "non-combat" tells.
2) Something others have not mentioned, watch for danger on your left. Are you OOP to a troublemaker? or a regular? or a TAG? Assess whether you want to stay in this seat at this table quickly.
3) Start with a table assessment, how many people see the flop? Then focus on PF folders and watch for the outcome of EVERY raise.
4) I tend to ignore "table talk" early and believe that "actions speak louder than words." It is easy to watch the action of hands you are not in. Those actions can tell you a lot, quickly. Settle for quick catagories of LAP, LAG, TAP or TAG and then refine your evaluation as play progresses.

[NickMPK]

If I'm playing a limit game, I usually assume that young men just sitting down at the table are decent players, and everyone else is basically a calling station (at the limits I play: 4-8 to 7.5-15). There are a whole lot of really bad young male players, but most of them gravitate to no-limit.