Deep stacked table of good players, swapping mistakes?

[winningfish]

How many of you are willing to make obvious small errors when first sitting down at a deep stacked table packed of decent players? If say stacks are 200xBB or more, how much are you willing to give away to create an image that will benefit you in the long run?

I don't mind playing a little donkish/hyper first few hands with annoying small raises on wild draws or TPSK, but I have found that as I move up in limits, good players don't seem to respond to that as much and by the time I get a huge hand and play the same wild style, I don't get the action that earlier smaller mistakes were designed to bring. Is this just because players are better(as opposed to small/low-medium stakes where I have found image-manipulation and swapping-mistakes quite profitable)?

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
How many of you are willing to make obvious small errors when first sitting down at a deep stacked table packed of decent players?

[/ QUOTE ]

None. If I notice that a table is super tight, I might LAG it up in small pots. If it's weak tight, I might call on the button with all kinds of junk and steal on the flop or turn when shown weakness by a preflop raiser. If its very good LAGs, then I might just play tight and patient, or maybe even find another table.

But I don't see much benefit in acting stupid in small pots so that people will think you're stupid in big pots. Good players won't give you credit for being stupid in a big pot until you show down stupidity in big pots. But that's generally pretty stupid.

Now, if you play with a lot of regulars, you need to be able to show down some daring bluffs and semi-bluffs from time to time for metagame purposes. They need to believe that you are at least capable to be bluffing in big spots or else they will make less mistakes against you when the pot gets big. That is something I've seen referred to as "shania," but that concept is different than what you're describing here.

[ QUOTE ]
If say stacks are 200xBB or more, how much are you willing to give away to create an image that will benefit you in the long run?


[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm playing one session with guys I might not play with again, then none. If we're playing regularly and aggressively, then there will be spots to risk your whole stack, but you'd pick your spots carefully, not donk them off with obvious errors.

[ QUOTE ]
I have found that as I move up in limits, good players don't seem to respond to that as much and by the time I get a huge hand and play the same wild style, I don't get the action that earlier smaller mistakes were designed to bring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meta-game considerations factor in over multiple sessions. Even in a single session, "small pot" bad play that goes to show down won't mean much to guys who are playing for stacks. Now, if you stack off a few times, that might induce action. But, of course, you'd be out several stacks and might not get them back if you tighten up. I really think your "play bad in small pots so players think I play bad in big pots" idea doesn't work as well as you seems to think it does.

If you want to change gears because the game conditions call for it, then do it. If you LAG it up in small pots, but don't go big without big hands, big draws, and big fold equity (based on your read of villain's hand range), then that's fine too. But you're OP plan to play bad for a while to create an "image" sounds like spew.

[ QUOTE ]
Is this just because players are better(as opposed to small/low-medium stakes where I have found image-manipulation and swapping-mistakes quite profitable)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Better players read hands better. They know that big pots in a deep stack game generally require big hands. They also are capable of bluffs and re-bluffs (bluff reraising when they suspect opponent is bluff raising), etc. They also watch their position more carefully - making it hard for you to benefit when you hit your "big" hand if you're OOP.

As for trading mistakes, I think trading small ones for big ones is still very relevant. But it isn't about metagame so much as implied odds, position, and reading particular players. Few players, if any, play perfectly. If you can spot mistakes that a particular player is willing to make, and you can find a way to exploit that mistake for a lot of chips if you get lucky on the flop or turn after making a small mistake yourself for the chance to cash in on that bigger mistake, then you're doing well in the battle of mistakes. The trick is to spot those mistakes. Not all players have the same mistakes. Some raise with junk OOP too often and 3-barrel bluff too often. Exploiting that mistake is different than how you'd exploit a tight preflop player who can't lay down an overpair on a ragged flop. Etc.