1/2. $500 high-hand promotion, and everyone at the table talks about winning it.

Hero just sat down. The reads contain only details Hero saw in the first 1.5 orbits of play. Hero got more details about the Vs over the three hands, which happened almost in succession. In the results for Hand 3, I’ll post more details about the Vs from later in the evening.

V1 (covers hero) has played half his hands . He is aggressive, three betting and making everyone fold. He has not yet showed down any cards. In one of these hands, V1 tank-checked on the river, V2 insta-bet, and V1 folded.

V2 (covers hero) calling as wide as V2, less aggressive, but will bet good hands and make stupid bluffs. He won a big hand showing down Q4s.

Hero (around 325) is a TAG but, when he first sat down, he got a sequence of decent cards: he got some limpers to fold after open-raising light, won a pot after 3-betting, and opened pre a third time and folded on the flop. He might appear more LAG than TAG. He doubts V1 and V2 are paying attention: they turn to their cell phones after they fold.

OTH

Hand 1

Limp, Hero with 9hTh in HJ raises to 12. V1 in CO raises to 30. Folds to hero, who folds.


Hand 2
V1 raises 10 UTG, V2 calls in MP, folds to hero who raises to 40 in the BB with AsQh. V1 calls, V2 calls.

Flop Jd4d9c (113 after rake)

Hero checks. V1 raises to 60. V2 folds. Hero folds.


Hand 3
Early open-limper, hero in LJ raises to 12 with KdQh. V1 in HJ calls. V2 on the Button calls. Blinds and limper folds.

Flop QsTd4h (36 after rake)

Hero bets 20. V1 calls. V2 folds.

Turn 5c (73 after rake)

Hero checks. V1 bets 35. Hero calls.

River 9c (143)

Hero checks. V bets 80. Hero?

Hand 3 snap call.

For starters you're readless. You played what, 12 hands with these guys? Thats completely meaningless. So far you've played all the hands well. Could argue H3 deserves a 2nd barrel to tax weaker pairs but x/c is fine on both streets.

Everything seems pretty standard especially without player reads. Hand 3 I call.

One of my questions is statistical significance on the reads: if a player plays 6 of 12 hands, how likely does he play ABC? The information for the reads is imperfect, but assuming these Vs play loose seems reasonable until any details contradict the assumption.

It's actually higher than most people would expect, and that's because we have priors, i.e. the probablilty any one given indiviudal is a Mainiac LAG at 1/2 is very small. A distribution may be 70% ABC Passive 25% TAG, and 5% LAG, i.e. we don't start assuming all are equally likely. Ed Miller has a fantastic chapter on using Bayesian approaches to categorize players in one of his books, I think it's in How to Read Hands at NL.

It's also not a very natural thing for us to understand. Say we get 3 bet twice by the same person in 2 orbits, our brains want to categorize him as LAG, rather than the more likely answer that it's a regulare player who just picked up 2 good hands.

This was exactly the response I was looking for. Can anyone confirm the distribution above?

It's not necessarily the distribution bc someone can get dealt aces, kings, and AK all within 15 minutes but what's more important is if you're able to see exactly what he's 3betting and opening with, and it would also depend on how long you've played with him. If he's been doing this for 8 hours straight (without showing down anything) then yes I'd say he's a lag, but not if we've only witnessed this for only 1.5 orbits of play.

Results

Hero calls, V1 says “ace high,” and hero scoops.

I’m glad I made the right decision but still unsure why everyone here says call. On the river, I asked, is my hand now just a bluff catcher? Can V’s aggressive and wide betting make him a maniac? I knew that 1.5 orbits gave the read a low certainty. I figured enough players might barrel with Tx, so I called.

For what it’s worth, V1 was indeed a maniac. He later barreled massive bluffs and got called enough with nothing to bleed $2,000 at 1/2 in four hours. V2 continued to call with worse hands and bluff without draw equity.

Can anyone give me credit for a good read based on context? My thought process was that one can more firmly conclude V1 is a maniac on a table where two-thirds of the players are loose-passives, rather than the other way around. In other words, on a table with mostly TAGs and LAGs ,my read that V1 was maniac would be worse. Context: at 1/2 in my casino, among the one-third who play aggressively, usually one of them gets thrills by making massive bluffs with bad cards. I have rarely seen a good LAG at my casino, and I’ve argued on twoplustwo that, yes, a player can be a bad LAG. Most in fact are. (A bad LAGs, twoplustwo posters often write, is “laggy.”) Most loose-aggressive players play inconsistently. They can’t resist limping their small pairs and low suited connectors and gappers (24s). While they raise a lot, they call too wide preflop. Out of position, they bluff too much and play too many hands. Bad LAGs don’t realize equity with bluffs on wet boards against fit-and-fold players or by making laydowns when they are beat.

i dont get it. you have top pair. you dont need to write multiple paragraphs looking for accolades, your call is extremely standard after you bet flop and check the turn. if you think this is some crazy **** you are probably getting run over in every node. you could / should x the flop some amount

If I was looking for accolades, I would not write anything on two plus two ever. How about advice for the OP, an amateur? Maybe instead read posts you like rather than ones by amateurs like me.

i gave you advice. this is a very standard call down regardless of reads. also you should check the flop some amount of the time, probably more so given its multiway and a guy you've classified as a maniac has absolute position. i dont see anything in the previous 2 hands to advocate shifting your entire strategy to assume hes a maniac he 3b an open in a spot most people dont play calls and he called a sqz after opening utg and bet when checked to on a board that interacts well with his range. you can go on about bayesian theorems and probabilities and whatnot but 2 hands isnt any kind of a sample and to me it just feels like you're getting upset because you think hes running you over when the evidence doesnt suggest that. the third showdown would change my mind but again thats why you have some hands that are capable of calling bluffs in all nodes

hand 1, hand 2 well played.

as noted by multiple posters above, hand 3 is a standard call even with no reads. You can also consider a turn bet some % of the time. If you want to find a spot where discussion of reads is relevant, it needs to be a close spot where reads tip the balance one way or the other.

I like this trilogy of hands. In h1, you fold the SC to an aggressive player preflop 3b. In h2, again with aggressive players, check fold the flop on a board that does not favor you.
In h3, you cbet then appear to give up, exploiting the fact they have been betting you off h1-h2 to induce the bluff. The river bet is nowhere near big enough to consider a fold.