Posted by Dr Fro 6:12 AM
For each person we know, we know them to different degrees, and we are always certain we know people better than we really do. Think of a person you know very well and think of another person that knows that person not as well as you do. I will take Jane as the person I know very well and the dude in the mailroom at her office as someone that does not know her very well.

The maildude and I can both accurately note that Jane can often be quiet. We can also observe that she is attractive. Maildude doesn't know much beyond that; I do. The void in between what one does know is inevitably filled with speculation. Maildude says to himself that as surely as 1 + 1 = 2, the fact that Jane is quiet and hot must mean she thinks she is too good for him. A reasonable deduction this is, but it is altogether untrue. I, on the other hand, know that Jane is often simply shy, and this is a result of being the youngest in a family that talks just to hear their voice. His conclusion was based on speculation; mine: on experience and observation. Consequently, I will be much more effective in dealing with Jane. Much is the same with poker.

We all know that one of the most important parts of our game is the ability to read other players and adjust accordingly. This is particularly true in live games and in big bet games such as NL and PL. One good read per night can be the difference between winning and losing. If you play $1-$2 NL and are good enough to have an EV of 3 BBs per hour, then in a 4-hour session, you can expect to win $24 in the session. Compare that to an otherwise equivalent player that also makes one great read per session. It is not unreasonable to think that at least once in a 4-hour session, both players will see a $50 pot into which their heads-up opponent fires a $50 bluff. Holding nothing but bottom pair and a busted flush, Mr. Nonobservant Three Big Blinds Per Hour may fold. The other player, having keenly observed his opponent's habits, calls the bluff and takes in $100 more. If you could expect to make $124 per session rather than $24 per session, would you start paying more attention?

There are aspects of poker we can positively state whether or not we do: Either you play 72o or you don't. Either you drink when you play or you don't. Either you show your hole cards after you bluff or you don't. Whether or not you observe your opponents as much as you should is difficult to determine. Just as maildude was certain he had a good read, you may have a false sense of how much observation you are doing. I have fallen victim to this, too. So how do you know if you are filling the void in between what is known with speculation or maximizing the value of keen observation?

If you have been playing for a while at a table, quiz yourself. Ask yourself what observations you actually have on each player. I did this to myself toward the end of my poker funk last March and was surprised that I had painted 1-dimensional characters of each player that were thinner than a character in a typical Fox sitcom. For instance, after a 4 hour session, I came up with:

This table is loose. Bob is really loose. Isaac is REALLY loose. These people will play any hand.

Contrast that with the type of analysis Dan Harrington has in the 2003 WSOP hand discussed at the beginning of his book. I should have been able to say:

Dan will play a lot of bad hands from the button and is prone to make cheap calls from the SB with bad hands. Otherwise, he has high starting hand requirements. He always limps except when it is only the SB and BB, in which case he has raised every single time to steal the BB. Then there is Isaac who plays bad hands from any position. As a matter of fact, he seems oblivious to position, as evidenced when he lost money playing 56s from early position and cried bloody murder when another player on the button won with the same hand. In fact, when I made a big raise with KT on the button, he chastised me for overvaluing my hand, completing missing the value of my position. Now the guy two seats to my right seems to only raise when I am in the BB and he is on the button. In fact, the raise seems automatic. I should consider defending my blind more.

I take it you see the difference. So, I have really been focusing on coming up with a way to gather this intelligence. The questions I want to be able to answer for each player are:

1. How do they play the button?
2. Are they willing to fold the SB in an unraised pot or the BB in a minimum-raised pot?
3. How much is their preflop raise? Standard or varied? When varied, is there a pattern?
4. How often do they run away from the flop vs sticking around?
5. Do they ever bet on the come?
6. Do they ever get caught bluffing? If so, what was their raise as a % of the flop? If so, is it always in a specific situation like when it checks all the way around?
7. Do they ever fold when re-raised?

I don't mean to simplify a complex subject, but I believe the short list of questions above is good bang for the buck as far as covering most of what you need to know in only 7 questions. You only have to update the answers for a small number of people at the end of each hand. Sure, people change gears, but not as much as they should. Even if they do, your analysis will catch up with them again.

I still occasionally find myself not fully paying attention. I sometimes force myself to add 1 new observation every 10 minutes. It's arbitrary, but it keeps me alert.

I think that the appropriate adjustments are intuitively obvious for each possible answer to the above questions. If not, perhaps you should go read Theory of Poker.

Well, I have been feeling quite good about my poker game for the past 3.5 months. Excluding our trip to Shreveport, my results have consistently proven that I should feel good about my play for the past 3.5 months. I have been playing with the same guys a lot, and the reads I have on them have started to pay off. (It should be noted that my biggest loss was in Shreveport where I played with very few people for long enough for reads to factor in too much. Two reads in a game recently are noteworthy:

A guy was caught bluffing a few times. I noticed that regardless of the pot size, he would bet $20 - $25 when bluffing and approximately pot sized when not. (see question 6). I had 44 and completely missed the board. On the river, I checked and he bet $25. I said "call" a nanosecond after he bet and he cussed. I won $75.

A guy made a big pre-flop raise. We were heads up and saw a flop of rag-rag-rag. I had an overpair with JJ and figured he probably had QQ or higher. This guy was very disciplined and was willing to throw away AA when re-raised on the flop (seen it twice, refer to question 7). He bet $50 into a $75 pot and I re-raised all-in (about $200 more). He thought long and hard and released his hand, telling me that I had made a set, which of course I did not. I won $125. He had QQ.

Over 4 hours, I made $200 extra on two reads. Sure, occasionally, you make the wrong call due to reads, but even so, the value of making your decisions based on reads in NL holdem probably has a bigger impact to your bottom line than simply playing otherwise "by the book" or based on shallow observations of your opponents. So why do NL players spend so much time obsessing with "by the book" play rather than observing opponents and adjusting? I don't know. Maybe it is because until very recently, 99% of all poker played and written about was limit poker, where that approach makes more sense.

Understanding others and adjusting appropriately is at the core of every book on being effective (e.g. Seven Habits of Highly Effective People). It is clear that Dan Harrington spends much more time than the average player making observations, undertanding his opponents and adjusting accordingly. I don't know why I went into a several month haze where I stopped being attentive to this aspect of my game. Was it becasue I was pre-occupied with non-work worries? Yes. Was it because online play turned me into more of a robot player? Wouldn't count that out. Was alcohol an influence? Don't ask stupid questions.

I can promise you that the new Craig won't fall back into his bad habits. So watch out. After all, I'm watching you.

4 Comment(s):

Posted by  Junelli, at 12:19 PM, July 28, 2005  

Good post. I agree that reading players and adjustments are far more important than playing "by the book"

I must object and express my disbelief about: "He thought long and hard and released his hand, telling me that I had made a set, which of course I did not. I won $125. He had QQ."

You're telling us that you moved all-in against a hand you were fairly certain was QQ or better, on a ragged flop, merely in hopes that he would lay down? That's some serious balls, because it takes a special man to make that laydown (without even considering the player: Dr. Fro).

__________________________________________________

Posted by  LAYGO, at 1:14 PM, July 28, 2005  

EXCELLENT ARTICLE!

I've been considering this very subject about my game and I can see how shallow my reads have been, although I have considered some of the other questions, but not near the depth needed.

This is the direction I need to go as I was trying to force myself to focus on the physical reads . . . that'll have to be later.

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Dr Fro, at 4:28 PM, July 28, 2005  

"You're telling us that you moved all-in against a hand you were fairly certain was QQ or better, on a ragged flop, merely in hopes that he would lay down? That's some serious balls, because it takes a special man to make that laydown (without even considering the player: Dr. Fro). "

Exactly.

I saw him lay down before in similiar situations. This guy was never willing to risk calling all of his chips with something less than the nuts. He may be the tightest player at J's!

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Johnnymac, at 4:46 PM, July 28, 2005  

Fro has balls. Funk can vouch for that.

__________________________________________________

Post a Comment