(Some Disorganized Thoughts) On the Topic of Hand-Reading and Incomplete Info

Matt Vaughan

Matt Vaughan

King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Total posts
7,150
Awards
5
Chips
6
I've been working a ton on hand-reading lately, as I see it as something (along with mental game crap) that is holding me back a lot from being able to play more efficiently (and obviously more optimally).

I feel like hand-reading is something that most people think they are "pretty good at" but also that most people wish they could improve on. So I figured I'd share some of my thought process on hand-reading as of late. :)

Poker is a game of incomplete info, so I've been thinking a lot about which villain actions give us the most info. I think I was watching a strategy video a while back and someone said something like "big bets and raises give you the most and the most accurate info."

I'm not sure that's quite true. If a weak-tight player who rarely bets suddenly 3bets a flop, then yeah that's a gold mine of info (another way to word this would be to say it narrows his range substantially). Seems like we get the most info from actions that are LESS likely to be made by a certain player. In other words, the actions that are taken less frequently narrow the villain's range the most.

Wow. When I word it like that it sounds stupidly obvious. Villain has a range -> villain takes action that he only does with small part of his range (and therefore less frequently) -> villain's range is MUCH smaller now. Duh. Apologies for what is probably extremely obvious to a lot of the more experienced players here.

For example, if a maniac opens from MP and we flat on the button, and the villain does NOT cbet and Q72r board, we can probably narrow his range more than if he cbets the board, as we expect him to cbet a huge part of his range.

I'll forego more examples, but I think what this says is that it's absolutely crucial to be hand-reading on every street. Often times a villain's range can stay very wide on the flop, and sometimes even on the turn, because of their actions, but then one action on the river tells us our hand is no good.

Another similar epiphany I had is that the more actions that happen per street, the more likely we are to have more info. If villain opens MP, we flat button, and villain check-raises flop, we have more info than if villain simply lead out on the flop.

I'm not sure how much this is going to help me in the near future, but the obvious follow up to that idea is that by raising opponents bets, you not only have a chance to take down pots through fold equity, but you also gain information more quickly during a hand, as it forces more actions to take place. I'm not advocating raising or check-raising every flop, but imo it adds more incentive for aggression as opposed to passivity when you might otherwise take a calling-station approach with a mediocre hand.

Sorry for the rant. :) Writing out my thoughts on stuff I'm learning/thinking about helps immensely, and hearing what other people think is doubly good. :)
 
MediaBLITZ

MediaBLITZ

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Total posts
2,206
Chips
0
Well way to think it through - but it's critical to note something else that might be obvious - it is usually about betting PATTERNS and not isolated hands (unless measured against the pattern of other hands). This can include the ability to discern that a players "pattern" is to do the opposite of standard thought, or continually misrepresenting his hand. So big bets and raises might give you info but it might not be the info you think if you don't have the pattern baseline to compare. Of course that might the pattern itself in which case you better watch your ass if he pops some value bets (hoping you come over the top since you've been waiting for a shot at his spewy play).
 
Matt Vaughan

Matt Vaughan

King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Total posts
7,150
Awards
5
Chips
6
Well way to think it through - but it's critical to note something else that might be obvious - it is usually about betting PATTERNS and not isolated hands (unless measured against the pattern of other hands). This can include the ability to discern that a players "pattern" is to do the opposite of standard thought, or continually misrepresenting his hand. So big bets and raises might give you info but it might not be the info you think if you don't have the pattern baseline to compare. Of course that might the pattern itself in which case you better watch your ass if he pops some value bets (hoping you come over the top since you've been waiting for a shot at his spewy play).

Yeah this was what I was trying to say - guess I botched it more than I thought!! :eek:

Basically, actions only mean something as compared to what we expect (from "baseline" patterns). But once we know the actions deviate from the norm, ranges tend to narrow more than when actions are more "standard."

Obviously you can't have deviation from norms without norms :)
 
MediaBLITZ

MediaBLITZ

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Total posts
2,206
Chips
0
Yeah this was what I was trying to say - guess I botched it more than I thought!! :eek:

Basically, actions only mean something as compared to what we expect (from "baseline" patterns). But once we know the actions deviate from the norm, ranges tend to narrow more than when actions are more "standard."

Obviously you can't have deviation from norms without norms :)

Unless of course Norm is a deviant - which he is...

... and I figured you had all that figured out - just restating.
 
Arjonius

Arjonius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Total posts
3,167
Chips
0
One thing that I didn't fully realize and thus didn't fully consider when I started to work on ranging people is that it's important to consider not just what they did, but also what they didn't do. Seems obvious, but thought I'd mention it in case anyone else is in the same boat.
 
Matt Vaughan

Matt Vaughan

King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Total posts
7,150
Awards
5
Chips
6
One thing that I didn't fully realize and thus didn't fully consider when I started to work on ranging people is that it's important to consider not just what they did, but also what they didn't do. Seems obvious, but thought I'd mention it in case anyone else is in the same boat.

I think that makes sense, Arjonius, though I tend to think about it a (slightly) different way. Basically, I try to always consider villain's action in the context of all the actions available to him. So "what he didn't do" falls out of that (if I'm paying attention). :rolleyes:

I really wish I had forced myself to play fewer tables earlier on - so much of hand-reading is seeing showdowns and paying attention to people's actions. But I started at full ring and got bored playing 18% of hands, etc. So I cranked up to 8 tables much more quickly than I probably should have.

I'm trying to transition to 6M (playing 2-4 tables), and while there's still a ton of uncertainty, I'm getting a lot more confidence in making reads and sticking by them.
 
Starting Hands - Poker Hand Nicknames Rankings - Poker Hands
Top