Pondering the play

So I was trying to figure out why my "reads" were so much better against a group of people I have not played before than against people I see all the time. It seems counter intuitive.

But I suppose part of it is what I mean by "read". To me, it is not necessarily a bodily reaction...at times it is just a subconscious "feel" for what is going on. It is a combination of their playing style, betting patterns, and the texture of the flop more than it is anything like "Oh, he twitched his left eye three times so he has A/K" type thing.

For example, take the guy with the I-pod that I called down turn and river bets with just a pair of queens on a flush heavy board. I had no doubt I was winning the pot. I almost re-raised his river bet and had I went completely with my "read" I would have. How did I "KNOW" that was the right decision?

It was nothing physical he did. He had his hat over his eyes so I could not see them, I did not catch anything in his posture to indicate he was bluffing...to be honest, because of our respective seats, I could only see about half of him. Nor was it anything about HOW he bet his chips. He was pretty consistent about stacking them out to the side, then throwing them out in sort of a twisting, splashing thing.

I think it was just observing him in a couple of hands prior. He wanted to have the "poker pro" image. Part of that is a certain play style that indicates aggression against passive opponents even with weak holdings. So when he checked the flop I knew he was not slow-playing it...not that he WOULDN'T slow-play, but against someone new he was going to put pressure on once he thought I did not have a hand. Before the turn and river came out, I knew he was going to bet and I knew I was going to call.

I had put him in the tight-aggressive mode and that is a play that a tight-aggressive player will make.

At the same time, the guy to my left I had watched and decided he was tight-passive. He did not raise pre-flop but played a lot of hands. However, once he flopped a big hand, he switched up and became aggressive. For example, in one hand he limped in, it was raised to 3 times the blinds, a guy to my right called, he called. Flop came A/Q/rag. The pre-flop raiser raised, the other guy called, he re-raised it, then called when they both went all-in. He had A/Q and had flopped top two pair. By seeing how he played the hand I had him as passive pre-flop, passive on the flop with something like top pair...those he would check/call...and aggressive with a monster.

So when he raised for the first time in the game I immediately put him on the correct hand, Aces. It was only after I talked myself down a bit that I expanded it to include other possibilities but my first instinct was correct. And I also knew immediately how to play the hand when I flopped the set. There was no question he would bet if I checked. And I was pretty sure my check-raise would generate a call.

Again, it was nothing in his physical demeanor. As near as I could tell, he was a robot. He also was lost in his I-pod world, he never smiled, frowned, etc. His chips were consistent in how he bet them, he did not bounce, hold his breath...I profiled him as tight-passive pre-flop and tight-aggressive post flop. By putting him into a CATEGORY of players I was able to anticipate the types of plays he would make.

And that, I think, is where I lose it with people I play with all the time. Because I have seen them raise with varieties of hands, I don't always categorize people as I should. I stop paying attention to their betting patterns. I allow the hands they play to bleed together and instead of a clearer picture, I get a blurry one.

I need to go back to putting people in various categories. That will allow me to put them on various moves they are or are not capable of which allow me to exploit their weaknesses while masking my own and avoiding their strengths.

So hey, even someone who consistently got in with the worse hand can learn a lesson from a night like Jax.