How to read a player online

ScottyZ

When you flop a big hand against a player called "mrkilla" from The Bronx with an PokerStars avatar which is a guy with a gun, you know what to do. 8)

PokerStars Game #333394259: Hold'em Limit ($2/$4) - 2004/03/13 - 19:26:17 (ET)
Table 'Serpens' Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: ScottyZ ($120 in chips)
Seat 2: nimzo ($116 in chips)
Seat 3: Oldsmobile ($46 in chips)
Seat 4: illiput ($76 in chips)
Seat 5: TuristOnTilt ($85.50 in chips)
Seat 6: woody55 ($60 in chips)
Seat 7: mrkilla ($40 in chips)
Seat 8: Mazeblue ($27 in chips)
Seat 9: larousse ($20 in chips)
Seat 10: CapGloval ($200 in chips)
CapGloval: posts small blind $1
ScottyZ: posts big blind $2
mrkilla: posts big blind $2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to ScottyZ [Qc Td]
nimzo: folds
Oldsmobile: folds
illiput: folds
TuristOnTilt: folds
woody55: folds
mrkilla: checks
Mazeblue: folds
larousse: folds
CapGloval: folds
ScottyZ: checks
*** FLOP *** [Tc Qh Qd]
ScottyZ: checks
mrkilla: bets $2
ScottyZ: calls $2
*** TURN *** [Tc Qh Qd] [Ah]
ScottyZ: checks
mrkilla: bets $4
ScottyZ: raises $4 to $8
mrkilla: calls $4
*** RIVER *** [Tc Qh Qd Ah] [Kd]
ScottyZ: bets $4
mrkilla: calls $4
*** SHOW DOWN ***
ScottyZ: shows [Qc Td] (a full house, Queens full of Tens)
mrkilla: mucks hand
ScottyZ collected $32 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $33 | Rake $1
Board [Tc Qh Qd Ah Kd]
Seat 1: ScottyZ (big blind) showed [Qc Td] and won ($32) with a full house, Queens full of Tens
Seat 2: nimzo folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: Oldsmobile folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: illiput folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: TuristOnTilt folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: woody55 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: mrkilla mucked [Ts Jd] - a straight, Ten to Ace
Seat 8: Mazeblue folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: larousse (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 10: CapGloval (small blind) folded before Flop

Of course, there's nothing non-textbook about the way I played this, but I just like the fact that I had a good read on him *before he even played a hand*. I knew he was the type to try to push me off the hand, and who could not be pushed off the hand himself when I started playing back for value. The only spot where this read might have changed my play is against a typical player, I might have check-called the turn hoping for a "scare card" on the river (for example Kd). However, the way I actually played it still seems to make the most sense even without a player read.

The moral of the story: Don't give away too much with your userid and picture (if any). It's probably a good idea to use something like "Edna" to fake people out. 8)

ScottyZ

SupaMuncher

I know there's a thread specifically on books somewhere, but I thought it would be more appropriate to post here:

I know there are a few books out there on specifically online-poker and associated tells. Has anyone read them? Are they any good?

Flush

As a Christmas present I was given "Killer Poker Online: Crushing the Internet Game" by John Vorhaus. Vorhaus is an occasional columnist for Card Player magazine and has an easy to read writing style.

The book doesn't really focus on online tells allthough some are mentioned. It goes into greater depth on the importance of taking notes on other players that you see often as well as mood managment when you are playing and trying to limit distractions. The book is available at chapters and is worth the cover price.

I've also read the Vorhaus' preceeding book: Killer Poker: Strategy and Tactics for Winning Poker Play. I liked this one as well.

CanadaKev

Vorhous' Killer books are a must for any limit holdem enthusiast.
Get them and you'll see
Kev

Hork42

Vorhous' Killer books are a must for any limit holdem enthusiast.

I agree. I recently picked up both of them and am currently making my way through them. I like what I see so far.

hork.

RoyalFlush

ScottyZ wrote:

When you flop a big hand against a player called "mrkilla" from The Bronx with an PokerStars avatar which is a guy with a gun, you know what to do. 8)

Although you are a great poker player, I find this quote very scary!
If a pro poker player jokes around and has a "gangster" name, would you assume the same aswell?
Screen names are just that, screen names

ScottyZ

That's a very good point, you do have to realize that some players are going to inentionally have "fake" screen names (and/or avatars).

I've occasionally played with loose aggressive maniacs called names like grandma378, and complete rocks with screen names like SeeYouAtRiv. Also, the most common type of fake screen names tend to be these exactly two types: either young players trying to pass themselves off as "grandmas", or people using very literal poker terminogy, like AlwaysCalls.

Geographical location (yes, which can also be faked) had something to do with it too.

Attempting to get a screen name read before any hands are played, I guess that I was assuming that much less than 50% of players use fake screen names.

But you're absolutely right that you normally can't count on someone's screen name for reliable information. I won't deviate my play *that* much until I have some more solid evidence to back up the read. In this example, it was pretty cool, because it's a case where (when heads-up) I'd probably slowplay some of the time and play it faster some of the time, so I just used the "temporary player read" to choose an alternative rather than chosing a strategy randomly.

If a pro poker player jokes around and has a "gangster" name, would you assume the same aswell?

If you are talking about B&M here, you normally have a lot more to go on before seeing the person play (voice, clothing, demeanor, etc). However, if you mean that someone is going out of their way to make a big deal about a nickname they have, that might contain some useful information.

In particular, I've got a lot of respect for Thuan Nguyen, probably in no small part because of his poker table nickname.

ScottyZ

ScottyZ

I just played with a player with a screen name indicating tightness who was 11% VP$IP, and a player with a screen name something like "bluffer" who was a habitual bluffer.

So they're not *always* faking.

ScottyZ

kwplayer

Hmmmm isn't that interesting normally I find the people on PartyPoker to go against their name ... that is someone called "bluffalot" usually doesn't bluff too much at all. All those "maniac" people usually play pretty tight and so forth ... LOL

If that was your "read" on the player, however, I would have considered playing the hand quite a bit differently.

a) check-raise the flop. You will get a guaranteed extra SB here and will raise his blood a bit.

b) consider check-raising again on the turn. Most players (when headsup) will consider making another bet even when check-raised on the flop ... this is a "feel" thing however because someone told me most people will check it through on the turn if they are checkraised. This hasn't been my experience but I guess it depends on what he thinks about you.

c) consider check-raising the river ... the K is a scare card (as any jack makes a straight). If you think he is a bluffer then there is an excellent chance he will take a stab at it and you can check-raise him.

As it turns out (and I hate being results oriented) if you had checked the river he would have certainlly bet with his straight ... Since you check-raised the river he would be reasonably sure that if you were betting the river you had a full house and he didn't raise .. even if you played it check-raise, bet, bet you might get raised on the river because your check-raise on the flop isn't as strong as the same play on the turn -- know what I mean?

Then again your play is the typical book play most people would employ when they flop a tight. (slowplay on the flop). Most people I play with would have folded on the turn when you made that bet ...

Also why didn't you raise your QT against a post and no one else? Sure you don't have position but you likely have the best starting hand and would force him to make a hand. Granted a lot of the time I would have limped to, just an option ... here is how it might have played out if you did that.

preflop: raise, call
flop: bet, raise, call
turn: check, bet, raise, call
river: bet, call

that is to say if you had raised preflop he is likely to raise you on the flop when he gets a piece of it...

ScottyZ

Those are some good points, and I remember considering also going for the check-raise on the river. I figured that this would be suspiscious after check-raising the turn. More importantly, I figured I might even get 3 bets in by betting out on the river if he made the straight and was going to play it too strongly.

Since I read this guy for a "bully" or "bluffer" I didn't think I could go for a string of check-raises as you suggested. Most bluffers (except the occasional maniac) will slow down when you show a lot of strength on a big bet (or any) street.

Checking the river after the scare card falls might be okay, but I think I might risk missing a bet, since I have to assume my opponent is not going to bet the river with less than a straight.

Of the different plays you suggested, I think I like check-raising the flop the best. Although it's a small bet round, I like your "irritate the opponent early in the hand" strategy, especially if I think I'm up against a hot-head. 8)

As for raising from the BB, I'm not much of a "blind stealer" at low-limit even when I do think I might have a good hand because:

(a) It never works.

and

(b) The overall texture of low-limit is rarely such that there is pressure to avoid being "blinded out".

I rarely give much consideration to defending my own blinds (okay in low-limit since I rarely have to even defend), or raising pre-flop to get the blinds out when I have a mediochre holding.

This is not to say that I won't raise often when it's folded to me in late position. It's just when I get in these situations which are clearly raise-or-fold, I'll choose folding more often than I would if it was a solid game.

ScottyZ

The_Gamblar

i use the relative speed of the person to act as a tell...
for instance if a person delays followed by a bet usually is on a strong hand and he is delaying his act time to show that he is thinking and that he is on a marginal hand ..
went u have someone's tell u better write that down cuz ppl tend to play a certain way continously until they realize that they need to change their playing style but for the most part espeacially online, ppl will play the same mostly textbook

Jay

The time thing doesn't always work. I say this because my roommate would purposely let the time run a little to give off the impression that he is pondering a call with a marginal hand.

The_Gamblar

that is what i just said
"for instance if a person delays followed by a bet usually is on a strong hand and he is delaying his act time to show that he is thinking and that he is on a marginal hand .. "

Anonymous

LOL, all about ITH!

Jay

The_Gamblar wrote:

that is what i just said
"for instance if a person delays followed by a bet usually is on a strong hand and he is delaying his act time to show that he is thinking and that he is on a marginal hand .. "

Ah... I thought you meant that that is what you believe rather than that this is a little trick. My bad.