|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/20/2009 9:49:49 PM PACIFIC |
 The table image paradox, noiseboy, 30. May 2003 10:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I've been thinking a lot about table image lately, and was wondering what you guys think. If your image is loose, people will make the mistake of calling you when you DO have a big hand, thus your big hands get paid off more. The downside is that people may call you when you don't want them to, so you get more bad beats. When your image is tight, people make the mistake of folding when you don't have a strong hand, so you are better able to steal pots and push people off of marginal hands, but with the downside that you might not get paid off as much when you have a monster. I'm not saying anything new here, I know, but the paradox is that the way to exploit a loose image is to catch people when you DO have a strong hand, ie tighter play then they expect from you; and the way to exploit a tight image is to sometimes play aggressive when you DON'T have a hand, ie play looser than they expect you to. To confuse matters further, if you have a tight image, then get caught stealing, you're image has loosened up. The reverse is true if you've been playing loose, and somebody looks you up in a big pot and you show a monster, then your image has tightened up. Anyway, it seems to me like there has been a lot of argument among poker authorities as to whether a tight or loose image is more profitable, but often it is neglected that table image is a fluid thing. People remember all or at least some the hands that have been played, and your image is in a constant state of flux. Most likely people remember the most recent hands more clearly, so you could possibly try to exploit your "recent image". I know a lot of tournament players talk about "changing gears", is this what they mean? They also talk about "putting a play" on someone, which I think is a way of saying that you are setting up a certain image, then using that to exploit your opponents expectations. I know I'm being really general here, but I'm interested in people's thoughts about this. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, MozMan, 30. May 2003 13:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Actually, when you "change gears," you're not really changing your image, only confusing it... and that's where the benefit comes from... For example, several weeks ago, I was playing in the card room, and took down several large pots in the space of about an hour... all with monster hands. I had not played in any other hands during this period. It became obvious that the table began to view me as very tight, because the next time I bet out on the flop, everyone folded and someone said, "We believe you!" The very next hand, (I was in late position), with only two other callers, I played trash, and played it hard. I took the pot on the turn with an 8 high because they all folded... but I showed them my hand. They did not suddenly view me as a loose player, they were just confused. After that, I pretty much ran the table until I left, because no one was ever sure anymore whether I was really playing a monster or all-out bluffing. Of course, I did not bluff again after that... but they just never knew, and none of them could pay me with any degree of confidence during that session. -Moz "There is no spoon." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, Wren, 30. May 2003 13:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Very interesting post, noiseboy. It was actually something that I was going to bring up myself (I touched on this with someone else in a different thread) then got too lazy :) Table image is definitely something that's in a constant state of flux, and the winning player must continuously adjust accordingly. For instance, say you're playing very tight, but occasionally pick up a few pots on bluffs. Then, one time, you get busted. The more astute players at the table will think "Gee...he/she does bluff after all" and will be more likely to call you down next time they are in a hand with you. Due to this, it is probably a bad idea to make another bluff any time soon. Show down some more winners (hopefully getting more action on them than you would have had you not been caught bluffing), and then, perhaps a couple hours later, try another bluff. People will again be giving you respect for good hands, and the bluff will have a higher chance of working. The above is the type of strategy I like to apply at the table. In general, I like to have a tight image, and go for steals every now and then. However, if I get caught, I don't mind too much as it'll come back to me and then some next time I have a hand. I will sometimes turn my bluff face up on a tight table to "ruffle the feathers" of the rockier, more passive players at the table if the table is generally not giving very much action. Some other players may prefer having a loose image, bluffing frequently, but also getting paid off on monster hands. The general idea is to have other players thinking that you most likely don't have a hand, so that they pay you off when you do. However, this can get to the point where you can't bluff at all as no one is giving you any respect. At this point, it might be best to slow down and tighten up for awhile until you start getting a bit more respect, and then start firing again. This isn't really the same thing as switching gears in a tournament. The latter is something that is important to do regardless of how other players perceive you. For instance, as blinds get higher, your stack gets lower, and your table becomes shorthanded, you MUST become looser and more aggressive in order not to blind out. All in all, concrete tournament conditions (stack sizes, blinds, position, etc.) determine when it's time to switch gears. More subtle, human-oriented conditions suggest when it is time to tweak one's image. I think this is a really interesting topic, and I'd love to hear what Mike and Roy have to say about it (and, of course, everyone else on the forum). | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, noiseboy, 30. May 2003 14:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| To complicate the table image issue further, something that Gary Carson's book brings up, is that different players at the very same table might have a different image of you, and that to exploit it, you need to have an idea of what each player thinks of you. For instance, you might think you are playing loose, but to a maniac you might seem tight weak. At the same time the maniac thinks you're weak, there might be a weak player at the same table who things you are aggressive. You can certainly geek out on it a bit much. However, I think "temporary table image" and perhaps "player specific image" which are more based on recent events and how your competition perceives them, than your long term play, are valid concepts to think about at the table. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, MozMan, 30. May 2003 14:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Ahh... now there is something I had not considered... of course, that is one of my personal failings; I tend to think that everyone should think like I do! So if I think I'm presenting tight, everyone should think I'm tight... It really doesn't work that way, does it. =) -Moz "There is no spoon." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, Poker Crone, 2. Jun 2003 23:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Wow! Really good points. I love the way you think about stuff, noiseboy. Except for our disagreement about the casinos we each like in our area, I think we would enjoy talking to each other about poker in person. I'll buy you dinner if you'll come to Casino San Pablo. Or I'll but you dinner at the Oaks and not say ONE negative thing about it the whole time! on 30. May 2003 14:10 noiseboy wrote: > To complicate the table image issue further, something that Gary Carson's book brings up, > is that different players at the very same table might have a different image of you, and > that to exploit it, you need to have an idea of what each player thinks of you. For > instance, you might think you are playing loose, but to a maniac you might seem tight > weak. At the same time the maniac thinks you're weak, there might be a weak player at the > same table who things you are aggressive. You can certainly geek out on it a bit much. > However, I think "temporary table image" and perhaps "player specific image" which are > more based on recent events and how your competition perceives them, than your long term > play, are valid concepts to think about at the table. > | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, timmer, 31. May 2003 08:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Is selling chevys more profitable than selling fords ? on 30. May 2003 10:30 noiseboy wrote: > I've been thinking a lot about table image lately, and was wondering what you > guys think. > > Anyway, it seems to me like there has been a lot of argument among poker > authorities as to whether a tight or loose image is more profitable, but often | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, Mark, 1. Jun 2003 16:33 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| There has also been some Card player articles in the past that talked about different images for different games. For example, you want to be feared in Hold'em and loved in Omaha. It really depends on the game, opposition and how you play. mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, Poker Crone, 2. Jun 2003 23:45 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| loved in Omaha? say more -- do you remember what issue? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, Mark, 2. Jun 2003 23:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 2. Jun 2003 23:45 Poker Crone wrote: > loved in Omaha? say more -- do you remember what issue? no i don't remember which issue, because i sometimes go back and re-read the archived issues. the article said something to the effect that you want to be loved in Omaha because you will be playing fewer hands, but most of these will be very strong. Because most of the hands you play are going to be very strong, you want people to call you. If they fear you, you won't be getting much action. (this is very obvious for games like Pot limit O/8) So if people "love" you, they like it when your in pots, and will give you more action. - the only problem is, i don't know how to do this. Hold'em is the opposite. Because most of the hands you play will not hit the flop at all, you would like to be able to steal alot of pots. To do that, people have to fear you. Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image- loved in omaha, hated in hold em, and whiners., Poker Crone, 3. Jun 2003 11:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks for your reply. Has anyone else had to work on themselves not to become a people pleaser and piss winnings away when people at the table start to grumble and whine and give off bad vibes cuz they are jealous and CONVINCED that YOU chase and they don't?? I'm working on not needing to be loved. (Every character strength and weakness shows up in poker -- i consider it a fantastic way to work on myself with repercussions in every area of my life.) This weekend after i scooped some huge pots I finally told a guy and a lady (loose, chasey players) who were grumbling to their neighbors about how "poorly" I played and how everyone was chasing to stop whining. I said "You guys are whining. This is 3/6. If you don't like the way it's played go play 9/18." They actually behaved more civilly after that. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, Poker Crone, 2. Jun 2003 23:36 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Great analysis of something i've thought about alot too --and I like your term for it. I agree with your conclusions, and your thoughts on rythym. I usually sit down and play really tight, get people to fold, and then when it gets to the point where everyone folds around when i enter a pot, i do some serious advertising! Now they're freaked -- and they start calling me again. of course at that point i tighten way up, and when I show them the nuts the cycle starts again! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, shorn, 3. Jun 2003 04:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| These are all good points that need to be considered, but one thing hasn't been mentioned. Most of the LLHE games that we play in (5-10 and below) don't have players in them who pay any attention to what cards you hold or the fact that you bluffed or not. Therefore, these advanced strategies can end up costing you $$ in those games if you aren't careful. We need to remember that in order to be deceitful, we need to be playing with players capable of being decevied. Once you begin to play in the middle limit games (10-20 and up), then you will have players that you will need to deceive more. My experience has been that in LL, you need to show a goo dhand down at the end to drag a pot because there will most likely be some yahoo who will call you down with 5th pair. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, TKarrde, 3. Jun 2003 06:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree. I think in LL you make your money by folding often and folding wisely. Hard to believe that you make your money by NOT playing. TK | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: How deal with flopped full houses using the rags you just tossed?, Poker Crone, 3. Jun 2003 12:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Re: your statement below: I agree, and I don't see anyone in Cardplayer or books talking about how to handle the biggest thing that I see sucking people into playing loose -- we fold a crummy pair and see that we would have won with it. Or we fold a marginal hand like AQu under the gun and it would have won a monster pot. I folded K10u TWICE in fifteen minutes in early/mid position in 9/18 rcently, and BOTH times the flop came a full house with those cards I just folded. These things hurt, and make a big impression, and when we see loose player's stacks growing huge its hard to remember that those stacks will shrink just as surely as did the Titanic, and that that K10u would ultimately loose us LOTS more than we would gain. Has this all been discussed before in some thread? Book? Article? The most pro writers say is that it's hard to see OTHER people winning with crummy hands that you typically fold. on 3. Jun 2003 06:30 TKarrde wrote: > I agree. I think in LL you make your money by folding often and folding wisely. Hard to > believe that you make your money by NOT playing. > > TK | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: How deal with flopped full houses using the rags you just tossed?, TKarrde, 3. Jun 2003 12:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| What? KTo is a bad hand? Dang it! I knew I was doing something wrong. Actually I think one of my better strengths is being able to fold and not care if the flop hits me. Truthfully I don't even remember what I had half the time. Once those cards are gone I erase the blackboard. But then again, that is easier to do playing 3 tables on line. I REALLY need some live table experience. My weakness... playing any pair in any position. I don't know why. I don't hit the set very often. I gotta learn to let those go. Something I was proud of this weekend was hitting two pair on the flop this weekend (with big cards) two different times in a NL tourney. Both times I had someone go all-in at me and I folded the cards. I might have had the best hand. "Might have". It was really hard to fold those. But dammit if I didn't crack the top 4 before busting out with pocket Aces. TK | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: How deal with flopped full houses using the rags you just tossed?, Poker Crone, 3. Jun 2003 17:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| What? Two big pair is a bad hand in tournament play? Dang it! I have a lot to learn. :) By the way, I agree with you that letting go and forgetting is the best way to deal with the whole thing -- i can do it live, often, as well as on line -- who would have thought my worsening memory would serve me in hold em?! :) it's obviously a liability in stud. on 3. Jun 2003 12:16 TKarrde wrote: > What? KTo is a bad hand? Dang it! I knew I was doing something wrong. Actually I think one of > my better strengths is being able to fold and not care if the flop hits me. Truthfully I don't even > remember what I had half the time. Once those cards are gone I erase the blackboard. But then > again, that is easier to do playing 3 tables on line. I REALLY need some live table experience. My > weakness... playing any pair in any position. I don't know why. I don't hit the set very often. > I gotta learn to let those go. > > Something I was proud of this weekend was hitting two pair on the flop this weekend (with big > cards) two different times in a NL tourney. Both times I had someone go all-in at me and I folded > the cards. I might have had the best hand. "Might have". It was really hard to fold those. But > dammit if I didn't crack the top 4 before busting out with pocket Aces. > > TK | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: How deal with flopped full houses using the rags you just tossed?, shorn, 4. Jun 2003 06:01 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I will give you a sobering example of what can happen if you play rags and hit. I was in a passive 3-6 game last night on Party and had 87o on the button. 3 limpers before me and I decided to muck because there wasn't a whole lot of $$ in the pot. The flop comes 887 with two spades. F@#$%! I yell at my screen. As I am counting the $$ that I would have won, the turn comes a 2 of clubs, no help to anyone. First limper bets and everyone calls. I am really pissed now. River comes a Jack of hearts. First limper bets and everyone calls. What did the first limper have? You guessed it...JJ for the bigger boat. I went from counting the $70 pot as mine to realizing that I would have lost around $42 (pre-flop call, flop call, turn raise, river cap). The lesson is: don't call with marginal hands if the odds aren't there because even when you flop a seemingly unbeatable hand, bad things can happen. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: How deal with flopped full houses using the rags you just tossed?, STEPHEN ROWE, 3. Jun 2003 15:23 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Speaking of Cardplayer,does anyone out there know why their online issue {should be dated June 6'th] is not yet up on the internet? they are normally there the week before the publishing date,usually on Wednesday or Thursday. Maybe Roy can help? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, Poker Crone, 3. Jun 2003 11:40 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree. It's hard to play low limit -- I actually find 9/18 easier than 3/6, because you can bluff from late position and be believed, etc. The other day I folded top pair, kings, cuz there was a flush draw on the board and I figured one of the chasers had made it, the way they were betting. One guy had absolutely nothing and the other had a very low pair. Any suggestions for how to play low limit? It's all my bankroll can handle right now. Has anyone written a book about strategies for it? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, shorn, 3. Jun 2003 11:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The best book out there is Lee Jones "Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em". Basically, because you have people with crap in all the time, you have to be prepared to get sucked out on a lot more often that you do at 9/18 and above. However, it gives you many many more opportunites to value bet because your fear of being raised isn't as high. As you point out, there are going to be times when you throw away your top pair, good kicker hands and they would have won. That's OK to do as long as there are a number of opponents in the hand because then it is likely that someone does have the flush. I find the cutoff to be 3 players...2 or 1 and I think it is profitable to stay in. Definitely pick up Lee's book. It has some great ideas. Good luck. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, TKarrde, 3. Jun 2003 11:56 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yes. Lee's book was great for me as a beginner. I also have a Sklansky but found it more difficult to keep my attention and a bit dated. I'd send you my copy if all the pages weren't falling out! Should arrive any day... Phil Hellmuth's book (just cause everyone else seems to have it) and Mike Caro's Book of Tells. Latter is not gonna help me much playing online but I've heard it is just a darn interesting read. What next? Doyle Brunson's Super System? TK | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, chasepoker, 3. Jun 2003 17:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Doyle's book is good for the No Limit section in my opinion, the rest i did not get a massive ammount out of. 7 High's Chasepoker | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, Laredo, 3. Jun 2003 17:56 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| TK, I strongly recommend "Middle Limit Poker" by Ciaffone. Robert | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: low limit value betting, Poker Crone, 3. Jun 2003 12:23 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks so much! One favor: could you explain what you mean when you say: "However, it gives you many many more opportunites to value bet because your fear of being raised isn't as high." Does that mean staying in "on the come" yourself because lots of people will keep feeding the pot? > > . | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: low limit value betting, shorn, 3. Jun 2003 17:01 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yes. Because LL tables are generally weak passive, you can bet your four flush on the flop with 7 other players in because you are on a 4 to 1 shot and you are likely to get at least 5 callers meaning you MAKE money (in terms of LT expectation) even if you don't hit your hand. When you hit, then you have built yourself a nice pot too. However, don't get carried away with this...be drawing to the nuts with a bunch of folks in and make sure that the table is passive enough that you generally won't get raised or then you are paying two bets to draw when you may have been able to see the turn for free. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The table image paradox, Banning, 3. Jun 2003 22:29 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Winning at Low limit poker by some guy that I can't remember. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|