What can you learn from a single hand?

[Dobbler1]

Do you think you can ever draw good conclusions about another player after only seeing them play one hand?

I used to draw conclusions about a player's style too quickly, or based on too little information. Opened 5 hands in a row? "Must be LAG" I'd think. Ignoring the fact that sometimes a person can catch 5 strong hands in a row.

I do think that there are times when you can draw conclusions about a player based on a single hand, although I think only if the hand goes to showdown, and only if it is an extreme example of some trait (calling station or maniac, for example).

 

[Kenzie 96]

Accurate conclusions in one hand, no. Any note taking would need to include the sample size.

 

[Dobbler1]

Accurate conclusions in one hand, no. Any note taking would need to include the sample size.

If the first hand of a tourney, one player shoves and another calls, and the shover had 3-2 off, isn't it a pretty strong conclusion that they are a bingo player/maniac? I'd stand by that conclusion pretty strongly. The only other explanation would be a mis-click (for an online game). Or is there some other possible explanation for that behavior that isn't "They're a maniac"?

I mean no conclusion should ever be written in stone, but I stand by the fact that it's a good conclusion.

 

[pauloandre100]

take the hand and place it on the equilab. Go testing how the hand behaves vs. villain's range

 

[BillyR23]

After one hand(or a small sample of hands), you can't really make a conclusion about the type a player is - in your example with 23o, they might just have a bad day and 'throw' away the chips when in most cases is actually a good overall poker player* this doesn't mean that you can't make a note about the 'weird' play but just don't make your future decisions against this player based on 1 previous experience... Still, if similar notes about the same player add up after a few sessions, than it's usually safe to say you have his type of poker player figured out and you can adjust your strategy based on it...

 

[mina271]

A hand says nothing about the player, you need more to be able to decide whether it is a maniac or not. Even if you caught someone with a hand like 23 off, that doesn't mean that he always does it. And maybe he also wants you to think he is a maniac and then to recognize something like that, it's not enough to have seen a hand.

 

[blueskies]

It's only extremes that are noticeable after one hand. But to be safe, see if the guy repeats similar behavior.

If some fool shows down 73 and wins a pot with bottom pair by calling 3 bets, then be sure to tag him. Just one hand is enough to know how he plays.

 

[Dobbler1]

After one hand(or a small sample of hands), you can't really make a conclusion about the type a player is - in your example with 23o, they might just have a bad day and 'throw' away the chips when in most cases is actually a good overall poker player* this doesn't mean that you can't make a note about the 'weird' play but just don't make your future decisions against this player based on 1 previous experience... Still, if similar notes about the same player add up after a few sessions, than it's usually safe to say you have his type of poker player figured out and you can adjust your strategy based on it...

I really feel like theory is taking a back seat to practice in this type of response. I think if I didn't make future decisions based on conclusions made from the single hand like in my example, I would be leaving money on the table for the sake of a principle. Should it turn out that future information disconfirms my conclusions, then obviously I have to be able to change my assessment.

Put it this way. If my one-hand assessment is correct most of the time (and I think it is), and I act wisely accordingly (call shoves very wide in cash games, or when ICM considerations allow for in tourneys), then I'm going to make lots more money than I loose when my assessment is wrong. If I sit down at a table, and the same player raises my blind all in first hand, I'm calling with 10s, and I'm confident that I'm going to win that pot 3 out of 4 times. Obviously, if I see the player at the table fold 5 hands pre-flop first, or make normal sized opening bets for a while before making a preflop all in, then I'd be an idiot not to factor in that information. I just think it's dogmatic to not act on a pretty obviously displayed weakness just because it's possible that your assessment is incorrect. It's always possible that your assessment is incorrect. Maybe you played a guy for months or years and he has displayed some exploitable weaknesses in his game, but had a great coach shore those holes up yesterday. The question isn't if you could be wrong, it's if it's likely.

It's no different a mindset from calling an all-in against a lag when you don't have the nuts (you're likely ahead, but maybe not). You're choosing to make an optimal decision, not a risk-free one. Do you really dispute that my example is going to produce an accurate assessment most of the time?

 

[BillyR23]

I didn't really want to dispute your arguments and I actually agree with your points(I especially like the phrase "accurate assessment most of the time" and I think as poker players that's how we should think long term); I've only wanted to mention that I see many of my friends make 1 note on a player based on a small number of hands and take that into account for future games and like you said some exploitable weaknesses can be fixed, that's why I always advise poker players to not be lazy and make more notes on players that play often against you- poker players can improve their game quite fast nowadays if they are willing to put the work/ money into it...

 

[black and]

In my opinion, one hand is not enough to draw conclusions. There are coincidences and different situations, so in my opinion, at least 10-20 hands should be analyzed.