|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 8/28/2008 4:57:57 PM PACIFIC |
 Reads: Some typical styles, Aisthesis, 25. Nov 2003 21:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Up to now, my reads (in online NLHE) have pretty much been just collected observations--to the extent I can remember all of them. I try to make it a point to have everyone at the table roughly classified as loose or tight, passive or aggressive, by the end of the first orbit (this really should be doable, but I can't say I'm always successful--particularly if I happen to have some decent hands during the first orbit and have to start worrying about how to bet them). Anyhow, I was thinking it would be very helpful to have some typical groups of player types, largely as a memory aid, and would be interested to hear how others like to classify their opponents. To me, there seem to be two basic (related) dimensions to the problem: holdings preferences and betting styles. And each of these two aspects admits of the distinctions flexible/inflexible and positional/non-positional (the latter depending on how sensitive the player is to positional aspects of the game). I'm convinced actually that most of the players I run into at the $50 NL tables on pokerstars are pretty inflexible (barring tilt) and non-positional (playing pretty much the same hands regardless of position). I've also noted a few betting styles for myself but these are sufficiently variable that I'll just leave that out at the moment. But in my experience, I think I can put pretty much all of my opponents into 1 of 4 different categories as far as their holdings preferences go (this is just the criterion for being in the hand at all, for the moment leaving out when they make or call a raise): 1) Loose. Keeps any 2 high cards, AX, KX, any pair, any two suited (usually J or better for the top card), any connector. (once in a while there's also the extreme case of players who seem willing to limp on absolutely ANYTHING, but that's such an easy group to remember that I'm not even putting that in a separate category) 2) Tight. Keeps any 2 high cards (even KJo in EP--I'm talking about what I typically observe here and not what I think is correct), pairs 88 or better. 3) "Brunson." Keeps pretty much all of Brunson's suggested starting hands from any position (all pairs, AK, suited connectors, "trouble hands." I run into quite a few of these, although almost none who bet according to Brunson's recommendations). 4) "Sklansky." This is actually fairly similar to Brunson, although a bit tighter and much more positional. I think this would be my first suspicion if someone folds noticeably more often in EP than in MP or LP even if I hadn't yet been able to see any of their cards. That's really about all I can think of in terms of the holdings preferences of most players I encounter. I'd be interested to hear whether others have similar experiences and, particularly, about suggested refinements (or different approaches altogether) to this initial classification scheme. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Reads: Some typical styles, Huck, 26. Nov 2003 10:33 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| As timmer and several other have posted here, Dr. Schoonmakers book called "The Psychology of Poker" gives some very helpful tips about how you might want to categorize players. The trap of categorizing at all, of course, is that you define players without the willingness to redefine them based on future play. That is, you might characterize someone as loose/passive based on several hands, and then not re-define that player after s/he tightens up, either within the same game or in the next game you play against him/her. I like your idea of defining players as Brunson or as Sklansky/Malmuth, and/or whomever else. I'm surprised, however, that you define someone as 'tight' when they play cards like KJo in EP. This falls in the loose category for me. Or maybe I say that because I'm a Sklansky? (laughing) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Reads: Some typical styles, Aisthesis, 26. Nov 2003 11:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I was wondering if that book might have some good pointers--will definitely have to take a look. Another weakness of my initial "typology" is that it really needs to include betting styles as well as holdings (then you kind of have the whole scheme). I also agree fully that one needs to stay aware of deviations once the basic category is defined. I kind of figured my "tight" category would be a bit provocative (hence the parenthetical note), but it's actually the most common (in the tables I play) for players seeing the flop less than 20% of the time. I probably really should have called it "weak-tight," although I see a fair amount of variability in just how weak the player is. Sometimes they are at least not just obvious fish. The good players are, not surprizingly, almost always "Sklansky's" or "Brunson's"--usually actually Sklansky's, I think because so few people are willing to bet Brunson-style. I had prettyy good luck applying this initial scheme in my game last night, although there were a couple of loose players (seeing the flop somewhere around 57% of the time) where I had trouble figuring out exactly what they were throwing away... The one guy seemed to be keeping anything down to JXo, in addition to the typical holdings of my "loose" group. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Reads: Different approach?, Aisthesis, 27. Nov 2003 10:29 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| In trying to refine my "typology of players" to include the whole range of play (betting styles, holdings, etc.), I ran into a greater degree of complexity than I really would have liked. So I wonder if I really shouldn't adopt a somewhat different approach. So my question here is: How do those of you who feel like you can get a good handle on opponents pretty quickly (and continue to improve your reads over time) think about your opponents? Perhaps more in terms of similarity to opponents you know well? What I mean is this: Starting out, you play against certain opponents fairly frequently, and, if you're a good player, you get a good idea of what these people do in various situations and adjust your play accordingly. Then, whenever someone new sits down, rather than putting them in a "category" of the type I was suggesting, you can say, "Ah, it looks like this guy is playing like Joe usually does." Then you already have a pretty general hypothesis about the whole range of the new player's game and can begin to make mental notes about how this new person might play just a little differently from Joe, whose game you already know in detail. If this is correct, I don't think my "categories" are completely useless, since even in one's repertoire of familiar players, you'll have Joe, Ann and Bill, who are all, say, loose-aggressive but with important differences. And it may take a little while to pinpoint which one of these the new player really resembles most. But maybe it's better to pick out some "archetypal" players with whom one has played a fair amount and then think in terms of resemblances and differences. What do people here think? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Reads: Different approach?, Aisthesis, 27. Nov 2003 10:36 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| A problem here for an online player such as myself is the enormous fluctuation in opponents. And for me, I am much more apt to remember (and make more detailed notes) about dangerous opponents than fish--although I think the latter are (almost) equally important since they come in very different guises and are the real source for winnings. But studying some pokertracker data should make for a good start here. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Reads: Some typical styles, LKP, 28. Nov 2003 01:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I find this is what works best for me. I don't necessarily feel the need to label every player, and I don't feel the need to categorize them. I just note anything of interest in the convenient little notes field. I will even write down the specific example of what happened if it is really noteworthy. That way, my image of the person is exactly what it should be, a collection of their past play. I may make notes alluding to certain categories like tight, loose, aggressive, passive, etc, but it's not an active attempt to categorize. There are just so many behaviors out there to look for, from loving Ax suited and weak aces to overvaluing low pocket pairs, from constant slow-players to constant aggressors, on and on and on. I never find that keeping up with those notable behaviors leaves me at a debt of information. Plus, the specificity of each behavior allows me to evaluate each opponent individually instead of cramming them into a categorical box. I can see why you would find the use of these categories to simplify the procedure, but try it without any simplicity and see how you do. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Reads: Some typical styles, Aisthesis, 28. Nov 2003 11:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yeah, I'm basically liking that idea, although I still think some of the categories can simplify matters. I did start taking notes on paper last night and found that really helpful. Then after the session I went through and transferred that into the comments field in pokertracker. There are definitely way too many variables for the categories to provide an adequate picture in any case. One thing I noted last night, for example, on a couple of good players: One guy was pretty consistently winning but not really dangerous because you could pretty much just play your hand (I think he probably bluffed me out on one or two, but on small pots that with my holdings I wasn't willing to risk any more money on--and I bluffed him out of one or two as well). Another good player would kind of stagnate for long periods, going down slowly with loose play, but then come back and get a caller to his all-in on a very strong hand and boost himself way up there. I was fortunate enough not to be the one facing the decision of whether or not to call the all-in, but I did make a "danger" note on that player. I'm kind of thinking once I get a truly detailed profile on about 20 or so players of different styles, I'll probably have some good "boxes" in which to fit new players by virtue of their proximity to one of my paradigms. | ||
| 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 |
|