Tournament 6 handed: What Does This PFR Mean? (2 Viewers)

[RainmanTrail]

How is this even a discussion. Just fold. Easy fold. As in never ever ever ever ever consider calling KQo in this spot. EVER!

 

[Moxie Mike]

How is this even a discussion....

Unfortunately, it never became one.

 

[RainmanTrail]

Why are you asking to pin them on hands when you have almost no information? Their ranges are about as wide as they can possibly be here...

 

[Moxie Mike]

Why are you asking to pin them on hands when you have almost no information? Their ranges are about as wide as they can possibly be here...

Ok. What I've been trying to do is categorize players and assign meaning to their bet sizing. As this has evolved, I've been successful moving players off of hands when I perceive weakness, and been able to get from hands in spots I might have incorrectly called with in the past.

I consider it to be the next evolution in my card playing and player reading.

 

[DrStrange]

There is great merit to taking historical villain information gleaned from long running games and applying it to game situations. Heroes can greatly improve their decision making by thinking more deeply than the rest of the table. However, such situations make difficult subjects for strategy threads. Let's consider this one as an example.

The original post offers roughly two hundred words from which we are asked to make villain reads. Best I could tell there were zero words about Hero or his table image which likely makes a difference in how we might expect the villains would react to various decisions open to Hero. Also this is a league tournament setting, so there is a complex overlay of meta game considerations where we need even more information about the whole table ( and maybe even information about players who are already on the rail or not in attendance).

I think the original post might have effectively devoted five thousand words or more to develop the full complexity of the situation. OP also has to take great care not to "curate" his villain reads towards specific outcomes. I hope this is coming across as a difficult thing to do, because I feel it is quite challenging to write such a thread. < knowing that many of the consumers aren't going to bother reading it - too long, didn't read but here is my opinion anyway. >

In blunt terms Hero knows folding is the "right " decision in a vacuum. But he is trying to decide if his villain knowledge allows him to make a different decision that in hind-sight seems better. The answer to that question might be yes, but the members of the forum don't have anywhere close to enough information to reach that conclusion.

 

[Moxie Mike]

In blunt terms Hero knows folding is the "right " decision in a vacuum. But he is trying to decide if his villain knowledge allows him to make a different decision that in hind-sight seems better. The answer to that question might be yes, but the members of the forum don't have anywhere close to enough information to reach that conclusion.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I wish I'd posted this without revealing my own hole cards. I think if it were possible to have the discussion I was hoping for, that would have provided a better chance to do so.

This does go beyond our league though. I've been working to categorize players I don't know as I observe them... and matching up behaviors and patterns is part of that process. As an example of that, I played against a guy Friday night for the first time in a tournament who I identified as having a playing style almost identical to mine. So I adjusted my strategy to combat that type of player.

By posting this thread I was hoping to get responses like... "a bet of this type from a strong player in these circumstances likely means XYZ..." But I can see where that's a lot to ask.

< knowing that many of the consumers aren't going to bother reading it - too long, didn't read but here is my opinion anyway. >

I wasn't going to say anything... but there does seem to be quite a bit of that going around - not necessarily in this thread but in the strategy posts in general.

 

[Frogzilla]

I never use a <2x 3-bet so not sure how one would be effectively employed. In other spots, (say SB open v BB) I’ve seen a mixed strategy employed:
Small sizing with a wide range and traps like AA/KK that don’t need to deny equity
Large all-in sizing with a fairly strong range

Now that we saw what hand he did that with (a big size hand), that’s probably not what’s going on at your table. MP’s strategy of varying open sizes is dangerous, especially in a league game, CO picked up on that and is downbetting with a large value range to get action from a very capped open range. It’s a situation you can squeeze fairly wide out of the blinds, my SB jam range probably looks something like ATs+, KQs, AQo+, 88+. KQo just missed it.

 

[Legend5555]

This does go beyond our league though. I've been working to categorize players I don't know as I observe them... and matching up behaviors and patterns is part of that process. As an example of that, I played against a guy Friday night for the first time in a tournament who I identified as having a playing style almost identical to mine. So I adjusted my strategy to combat that type of player.

This is where I get off your train. You just simply don't have enough info over a single session to really categorize anyone with confidence. It's at best a guess in that spot based on VERY limited info. You really need thousands of hands against someone to really be able to understand them.

As an example, I think too many players see someone turn over something like J7o in a weird spot and now they play thinking "this guy played J7o so he could have anything in this other spot." And that just isn't true.

Maybe I didn't say this explicitly, but if you have played enough with a villain to know that they are making small 3 bets with intention to fold to a shove, then that's fine. You could then shove way worse than KQo and expect it to work. But in general, playing a solid GTO is going to do well. I think the level of read needs to be really high to justify a play with KQo in the spot you described.

Plus, doing such things causes your range to become unbalanced if that matters.

 

[Frogzilla]

Maybe I didn't say this explicitly, but if you have played enough with a villain to know that they are making small 3 bets with intention to fold to a shove, then that's fine. You could then shove way worse than KQo and expect it to work. But in general, playing a solid GTO is going to do well. I think the level of read needs to be really high to justify a play with KQo in the spot you described.

Plus, doing such things causes your range to become unbalanced if that matters.

And if you showdown a truly F U exploit, they can easily change it up trying to exploit you back. So it’s really a one-time use

 

[Legend5555]

And if you showdown a truly F U exploit, they can easily change it up trying to exploit you back. So it’s really a one-time use

If I was the ATs with the chip lead and I saw someone overjam with KQo, you can be sure that the next time that spot comes up, I'm not folding ATs. Which then starts the whole I know that you know that I know stuff. I personally for the most part just try to play my ranges and not get into leveling wars. I would only make an exploitative level play if I know they aren't going to do it back.

 

[Moxie Mike]

If I was the ATs with the chip lead and I saw someone overjam with KQo, you can be sure that the next time that spot comes up, I'm not folding ATs. Which then starts the whole I know that you know that I know stuff. I personally for the most part just try to play my ranges and not get into leveling wars. I would only make an exploitative level play if I know they aren't going to do it back.

A buildup over a long run of consecutive sessions between quality opponents is always going to become a 'leveling war'. How can it not?

And if you showdown a truly F U exploit, they can easily change it up trying to exploit you back. So it’s really a one-time use

I wouldn't table an uncalled bet in that (or most any) spot. I would leave the CO having mucked confident he was correct to do so.

This is where I get off your train. You just simply don't have enough info over a single session to really categorize anyone with confidence. It's at best a guess in that spot based on VERY limited info. You really need thousands of hands against someone to really be able to understand them.

I respectfully disagree. I think you can categorize players within 1/2 hour at the table or sooner. It's a process of elimination but there are a lot of immediate clues you can pick up on from players you've never met before. Examples are (specific to tournament play):

If they limp from EP;
If they limp while shortstacked;
If the open limp from the button;
If they play a lot of hands;
If they read their hole cards prematurely;
If they read their hole cards early and the look like they're going to muck;
If they consistently show down garbage hands;
If they discuss strategy at the table;
If they consistently call PFRs;
If they make tiny bets compared to the pot size;
If they demonstrate a lack of understanding of evolving tournament dynamics;
If they seem to be drinking heavily;
The way they munch their Oreos...
Etc...

You'll notice these are all signs of a fundamentally unsound poker player - and are patterns that are usually observable pretty much right away. To be fair, noticing one or two little things here and there doesn't cement their categorization - but it gives you the opportunity to watch for consistency, and the more the patterns become evident, the more confident you can be in your reads.

The lack of observable 'tells' or bad play is just as important. It may not mean they're a shark, but they're probably not an idiot, either. For example, if you see someone fold 30 hands in a row with no change in demeanor - based on that alone it's probably reasonable to surmise that they're at least a competent player.

I try to rate new players on a scale of 1-7 with a '1' being a total fish, a '4' being competent and a '7' being someone to avoid if possible. You can adjust as your read evolves, but you can at least get a baseline on a player's tendencies in relatively short order so you have something to work with.

 

[Legend5555]

A buildup over a long run of consecutive sessions between quality opponents is always going to become a 'leveling war'. How can it not?



I wouldn't table an uncalled bet in that (or most any) spot. I would leave the CO having mucked confident he was correct to do so.



I respectfully disagree. I think you can categorize players within 1/2 hour at the table or sooner. It's a process of elimination but there are a lot of immediate clues you can pick up on from players you've never met before. Examples are (specific to tournament play):

If they limp from EP;
If they limp while shortstacked;
If the open limp from the button;
If they play a lot of hands;
If they read their hole cards prematurely;
If they read their hole cards early and the look like they're going to muck;
If they consistently show down garbage hands;
If they discuss strategy at the table;
If they consistently call PFRs;
If they make tiny bets compared to the pot size;
If they demonstrate a lack of understanding of evolving tournament dynamics;
If they seem to be drinking heavily;
The way they munch their Oreos...
Etc...

You'll notice these are all signs of a fundamentally unsound poker player - and are patterns that are usually observable pretty much right away. To be fair, noticing one or two little things here and there doesn't cement their categorization - but it gives you the opportunity to watch for consistency, and the more the patterns become evident, the more confident you can be in your reads.

The lack of observable 'tells' or bad play is just as important. It may not mean they're a shark, but they're probably not an idiot, either. For example, if you see someone fold 30 hands in a row with no change in demeanor - based on that alone it's probably reasonable to surmise that they're at least a competent player.

I try to rate new players on a scale of 1-7 with a '1' being a total fish, a '4' being competent and a '7' being someone to avoid if possible. You can adjust as your read evolves, but you can at least get a baseline on a player's tendencies in relatively short order so you have something to work with.

2 things,

One, I'm not saying you can't use that info. But it's just a data point. You have to see a lot of them before you can with confidence make certain plays like what you wished you had done in the situation you presented. Seeing someone limp a lot and then raising to isolate is a much lower level play you don't need as info for. Seeing them so something kooky in just a couple of hands isn't enough though.

Two, how does it not become a leveling war? You play solid and don't level. If your strategy is sound and balanced, they will lose to you over the long run regardless of how well they think they are leveling you. As soon as you start to level, you aren't balancing well. You only make more money in the short term by leveling and only if they aren't adjusting back.

 

[Frogzilla]

If they seem to be drinking heavily

I resemble that comment

 

[BGinGA]

I think you can categorize players within 1/2 hour at the table or sooner. It's a process of elimination but there are a lot of immediate clues you can pick up on from players you've never met before. Examples are (specific to tournament play):

If they limp from EP;
If they limp while shortstacked;
If the open limp from the button;
If they play a lot of hands;
If they read their hole cards prematurely;
If they read their hole cards early and the look like they're going to muck;
If they consistently show down garbage hands;
If they discuss strategy at the table;
If they consistently call PFRs;
If they make tiny bets compared to the pot size;
If they demonstrate a lack of understanding of evolving tournament dynamics;
If they seem to be drinking heavily;
The way they munch their Oreos...
Etc...

You'll notice these are all signs of a fundamentally unsound poker player - and are patterns that are usually observable pretty much right away. To be fair, noticing one or two little things here and there doesn't cement their categorization - but it gives you the opportunity to watch for consistency, and the more the patterns become evident, the more confident you can be in your reads.

The lack of observable 'tells' or bad play is just as important. It may not mean they're a shark, but they're probably not an idiot, either. For example, if you see someone fold 30 hands in a row with no change in demeanor - based on that alone it's probably reasonable to surmise that they're at least a competent player.

I try to rate new players on a scale of 1-7 with a '1' being a total fish, a '4' being competent and a '7' being someone to avoid if possible. You can adjust as your read evolves, but you can at least get a baseline on a player's tendencies in relatively short order so you have something to work with.

I'd love to see your player notes from the PCF tournaments.

I'm guessing most fields are full of 'fundamentally unsound poker players' with an average rating between 3.0 - 3.5, according to observations and your list.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I'd love to see your player notes from the PCF tournaments.

I'm guessing most fields are full of 'fundamentally unsound poker players' with an average rating between 3.0 - 3.5, according to observations and your list.

I don't have player notes... I'm never in the tournaments long enough to get any reads

Except for @MrCatPants - his notes read: "This player owns me."

 

[MrCatPants]

I'm just hot right now. 4 in a row!

Dont worry...I cant make it tonight. Hosting my fantasy football draft.

You shoulda seen the suckout @AK Chip had on me last night..i flopped a set, jammed, he called with bottom pair (same as my set) and went runner runner for the full housel

 

[AK Chip]

I'm just hot right now. 4 in a row!

Dont worry...I cant make it tonight. Hosting my fantasy football draft.

You shoulda seen the suckout @AK Chip had on me last night..i flopped a set, jammed, he called with bottom pair (same as my set) and went runner runner for the full housel

It was pretty sweet!