Putting someone on a hand |
|
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:57 am GMT by suitedaces84
"What did you put him on?"
"I had him on a flush draw so I had to bet big enough to force him out."
Everyone, stop doing this please. Even though your opponent will have exactly two specific cards that will not change it's not correct to "put them on" one specific hand. The reason for this is that you will almost never have enough information to determine exactly what those two cards are. If you assume your opponent has one specific hand and play your cards as if they have exactly that you may get burned when your wrong (and you'll be wrong quite a bit). If your opponent has only acted two or three times in the hand there are generally many hands he could hold. (As the hand progesses fewer and fewer hands will be consistant with all of his actions.) Guessing at which one it is can be big trouble.
Here's an example:
You have A  Q on a flop of Q  T  9 . The pot contains $6 and your effective stack size is $90. You bet $6 and your opponent calls.
The turn is 2 . Now the pot is $18 and your effective stack size $84.
If your opponent has a straight draw or flush draw you'll want to bet big. If your opponent has a straight, two pair or a set you won't want to bet big. So should you bet big or not (when I say big I mean enough to price them out after implied odds have been factored in)?
Betting big when your opponent has a straight draw or flush draw will force your opponent to fold and forfeit his ~$4 portion of the pot. Betting big when your opponent has a straight, two pair or set will usually result in you losing close to $40 (I say $40 because I'll assume that you can get away from the hand for about that much on average when beat).
Many players would have been quick to put their opponent on a draw, neglecting the small chance that they had a stronger made hand. Afterall, on a board like this a draw is much more likely than a stronger made hand. But as you can see that's not the whole story.
I'm not saying that the turn should be played in any specific way here. I'm just saying that there's more to "hand reading" than determining your opponent's most likely hand.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:03 am GMT by supafrey
Putting someone on a hand is fairly important, even if we're just doing it subconsciously. Regarding specificity - I don't see why saying "atleast top pair" or "has no made hand right now" would be wrong for alot of our decisions. Most aren't as complicated as that board.
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:11 am GMT by aaronw
I think its better to put someone on some type of hand instead of just mindlessly playing the game. If you put someone on some type of hand, you can still play accordingly and re-evaluate what you think they have based on their decisions. I think it is better to play based on what you think your opponent has (even having him on a small range of hands is good) than just based on your cards
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:18 am GMT by suitedaces84
Because you can get it right the vast majority of the time and still lose if you neglect all other hands. In the example I gave you could get it right 85% of the time and still be beaten. If you want to say "probably has this", that's excellent and I would encourage it. It just seems like a lot of posters are missing the importance of the word 'probably'.
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:31 am GMT by supafrey
so you're just concerned they get tunnel vision?
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:14 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| supafrey wrote: | | so you're just concerned they get tunnel vision? |
Exactly.
| supafrey wrote: | | Regarding specificity - I don't see why saying "atleast top pair" or "has no made hand right now" would be wrong for alot of our decisions. |
You're right about this. It will work most of the time. But when it doesn't work it may be extremely costly. So, in most NL situations being exactly right most of the time isn't as good as being close to right all of the time.
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:48 pm GMT by aaronw
Maybe I missed this in your original post, but what do you recommend a player doing instead of putting someone on a specific hand? Possible put them on a range or hands?
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:58 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | Because you can get it right the vast majority of the time and still lose if you neglect all other hands. In the example I gave you could get it right 85% of the time and still be beaten. If you want to say "probably has this", that's excellent and I would encourage it. It just seems like a lot of posters are missing the importance of the word 'probably'. |
I think a lot if it is 20/20 hindsight, and the "I put him on" stuff comes after villain makes his flush or fills up on the river or whatever.
It would be interesting, in fact, to look at all the posts where OP says something to the effect of "I knew he was on a draw," and then compare that to the number of times their "read" was incorrect.
I have a feeling it's near 0.
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:09 pm GMT by Dave B
I strongly disagree.
You HAVE to put people on hands. What you cannot do (this is a HUGE mistake that many players make) is put someone on the one hand they can beat.
If you find that you are not putting people on the correct hand more often than not, then you need to stop playing the game. Because you are no longer playing poker, you are simply gambling.
Are some hands harder to put people on than others? Sure. Are some people simply impossible to put on a hand? Absolutely. However, you need to see who you can ready and who you cannot and play each according.
This is why preflop limps are so dangerous, you gain no info.
Raising preflop, even w/ weaker cards, help to limit the range of hands that most players will play. This makes reading people much, much easier. Plus, it makes you harder to read. In NL tournies, do you always raise 3x the BB w/ AA or 56 suited?
I know what you are saying. Too many people put too much stock in their reads, even if there is no basis for them arriving at that conclusion. But too many simply refuse to put people on hands at all, and this is not the way to go either.
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:18 pm GMT by crack
I cannot explain what I do really. I decide if my players hand is weak or strong and then work from there from previous hands and betting patterns to put him on a hand.
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:19 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| aaronw wrote: | | Maybe I missed this in your original post, but what do you recommend a player doing instead of putting someone on a specific hand? Possible put them on a range or hands? |
The range of hands is key. In the example I gave you might put your opponent on a range that was 70% flush draw or OESD, 10% weaker made hands, 10% gutshot draw and 10% better made hands. The important thing here is to not neglect the outside chance of a better made hand even though it's not very likely. It's a common mistake to ignore the possibility of a better made hand because it's not very likely. I was just pointing that out.
Here's another example:
You have 23o in the SB in 10 handed NL game with effective stacks sizes of 100bb. Everyone folds to you. Let's compare going all-in to folding. Chances are your opponent will have a weak, marginal or strong (but not very strong) hand that he will fold. So going all-in will almost always work. Does that mean you should go all-in?
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:24 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Dave B wrote: | | I know what you are saying. Too many people put too much stock in their reads, even if there is no basis for them arriving at that conclusion. But too many simply refuse to put people on hands at all, and this is not the way to go either. |
I wasn't saying you shouldn't try to figure out what the other guy has. I was just saying that a lot of posters here try to somehow figure out exactly what the other guy has when it simply isn't possible.
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:24 pm GMT by golddog
Pardon me if I misrepresent your position, suited, but what I gathered you were implying (and I think it's important to be stated specifically) is that not only do you need to put your opponent on a range of hands, but also on the probability of those hands in the range to make a "proper" bet.
I don't feel like doing the math, but let's say you put them on KJ, AA, KK, QQ, TT, 99 30% of the time, and other hands 70% of the time. You then want to take that into consideration when placing bets.
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:38 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Golddog,
That's pretty much what I was saying. There is no way to determine whether they have a draw, a weaker made hand or a stronger made hand. The important thing here is to consider more than your opponent's most likely holding.
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:06 pm GMT by TheSalche
i think theres a lot of "gut instinct" that you get once you've been playing poker for a long time ... sure if you're a math whiz you can say "hes got the flush draw 70%, and hes beating me 30% of the time so i should bet X dollars to be +EV"
most of us can't do that math that quickly nor do we want to
there are certain patterns that hold true ... example: a check/call, 80 - 90% of the time indicates a monster hand or a draw, so depending on the board and what you know about the player, you can make a good guess at which one it is
i agree with you suited though, range all the time > exactness sometimes
good post by the way ... nice to see some content on this forum every now and then
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:19 pm GMT by UrAteUp
I liked this suited. Good read. As for the all-in with 23o...nah don't go all in but I would do some raising.
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:49 pm GMT by Dave B
Maybe we should have a poll, if I have been at a table w/ someone for an hour or so online or 2 hours live, I can put them on a hand at least 2/3 of the time.
I consider myself correct if I am in the correct range:
Pair and a draw
2nd pocket pair
flush draw
straight draw
str8 draw w/ overcards
Top pair, weak kicker
Top pair, strong kicker
2 pair
set (set being the hardest)
There are players that you simply cant read, mostly because they are idiots and play everything.
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:05 pm GMT by Skribbles
| Dave B wrote: | | There are players that you simply cant read, mostly because they are idiots and play everything. |
Idiots who play everything... Supa you know anyone like this?
Posted Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:28 pm GMT by supafrey
| Skribbles wrote: | | Dave B wrote: | | There are players that you simply cant read, mostly because they are idiots and play everything. |
Idiots who play everything... Supa you know anyone like this? |
I knew it.
Posted Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:40 am GMT by suitedaces84
| Dave B wrote: | | Maybe we should have a poll, if I have been at a table w/ someone for an hour or so online or 2 hours live, I can put them on a hand at least 2/3 of the time. |
Fine, I agree. But getting it right 2/3 of the time will be big trouble if you play as though you have it right 3/3 of the time.
Posted Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:54 am GMT by crack
I agree with everythin Daveb has said in this thread.
Suited: Yes you have to be confident with your reads, but you can't always be 100%, there is always a bit of a doubt though, which is what Dave is pointing out.
I don't play as though my reads are always right and yeah they are sometimes wrong, but that's just the way it goes. the more you play, usually the better your reads will get.
Posted Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 pm GMT by Dave B
You will note that I play mostly limit, if I am right over half the time w/ all else being equal, I will come out on top.
Posted Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:16 pm GMT by crack
In reality it will work out the same for NL, but with more variance.
Posted Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:22 pm GMT by Dave B
Not necessarily, if you are wrong in limit it will cost one or two bets. If you are wrong in NL, it can cost you much more.
You can be right 90% of the time in NL and still lose.
Posted Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:34 pm GMT by crack
You can be right 99 and lose, you can be right 99.99 and lose?
Thats why I said in reality it generally works out. On paper you can lose, but generally after time you will come out on top if you are right 2/3 of the time I'd say.
Posted Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:50 pm GMT by suitedaces84
I'm not sure how else to say it so for the final time here it is:
You cannot be sure what someone else has so don't play as if you are sure what someone else has.
Fair enough?
Posted Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:29 pm GMT by tame_deuces
Very good post, and very true.
Let's use the old one card poker example again! Weeeh!
Its a poker game of a blind structure similar to hold'em and three possible hands dealt: Ace, king or queen.
You're playing HU against three different players:
Maniac: Will raise every time
Nit: Will raise one out of 3 times.
Clever: Will raise 2 out 3 times.
It is profitable to peg the nit on a specific hand.
(In essence Supafrey's point. It is a simple hand against a simple player).
It is not profitable to peg the maniac on a specific hand.
(In essence Suited's point. We will lose alot money by playing as if he had one specific card.)
We will profit the most from pegging Clever on a range of hands.
(the supercool truth of poker)
Sure, this is very simplified logic but the point it shows is true for any form poker.
Posted Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:11 am GMT by age_of_sages
I can ALWAYS put spmeone on a hand, I just know that damn fish sucked out on me.
|
|
