I'm sure a lot of you guys deal with this. You play a bunch of hours over the years with the same people. They know how you play, your style and such, and vice versa. The thing is you may play 3 days in a row with a villain and then you don't see them for 5 months, then you play a few sessions, then they disappear and so on and so on.

So my question is how do we weigh recent history vs long term history?

An example, last week I ran into a villain that I've played with many times in the past. As a rule, he's a huge station, huge. He doesn't like to fold when he's put money in the pot, and against me he literally refuses to fold. I 3 bet him constantly w/ a merged range and vbet pretty thin, normally.

So last week I got him to call me down twice in big spots, and I felted him once, him calling it off.

Today I see the same villain. the last time we played together he lost a good amount calling my river bets. So today can I bluff rivers?

He's always been a station, and I've always been a spewtard, that's our history. But what should be fresh in his mind is me tabling the nuts in big spots.

Today in the right spots can I expect him to let go of his bottom pairs to psb's on the river? Is it safe to assume he'll put more stock into last week as opposed to like spring 2010?

My question doesn't just pertain to this guy and calling. In general, what do we put more faith in? the reads we've built over time, though not consecutive, pieces here and there, or what we've just most recently witnessed?

It's not out of this dimension for someone to change up their style, or make major adjustments. Still habbits that are ingrained in you are hard to break.

In poker, does living in the past spell disaster? or is it true that people never really change, and you can trust said villain to revert to being said villain?

thoughts?

It's an interesting question. I think it's really dependent on the intelligence level of your V. I know of some who are just too stupid to change anything ever. That sounds harsh but it's kinda true.

For others, I think what sticks in their mind is the big ones that confirm their natural play. If they like to call and they somehow hero called you once, that's what they'll remember. If they're nitty, then they'll remember that great fold they pulled off. It takes an awful lot of conditining to get someone to change their habits.

No. Keep value betting until he shows you he will fold.

Just because someone plays with you a lot doesn't mean they're going to adjust to your strategy. They may just as easily think, "my usual strategy will work this time", just like any other losing gambler.

I think after being in multiple hands against villains with history is very important. I honestly haven't much a lot of adjustments to my play over one night, it was rather more of a gradual change over a long period of time. That being said, it really depends on how strong of a player villain is. Imo, most players don't change up their play, and a lot of the way they play certain hands stay at the same (like say how they run up bluffs vs. how they try to extract value for strong hands). At least from what I've observed.

That being said, in your situation against a villain who is a station, I think with all the different stations I've played with, they've always stayed the same. So if bluffing otr is in your arsenal, I'd do it against a tight player who you know will fold to big river bets. So to answer your first question, imo, long history is much more important. I think against villains, if they change their style of play drastically, it will become noticable, but again, for the most part, I don't think people change up their play that much.

This. In general recent history matters way more. Most players have bad memory so relying on them to act based on past history from months ago is bad. However, since you've played with a specific villain long enough, if you haven't seen them change their play much, it's usually safe to assume they play the same they've always played. Obviously if they prove otherwise in the session, you just adjust to them from there

yeah I was thinking recent history should over ride preconceived or observed habits. Obviously if someone is steaming or just not playing their A game, we adjust to that, but it seems once a certain level of familiarity is built up they always revert back to what they were conditioned to believe(I think that's what spike was saying, and I agree)

Just to continue using my example or expound on it, I've shown the guy the goods and nothing but when I've barreled 3 streets last session like I said,

today There was a hand where mp opens, 2 callers, villain calls, I 3 bet squeeze gigantic w/ K5 from sb, all fold except villain

flop KXX, I lead pot, he calls, turn X check/check, river X, I bet 2/3 pot he tank calls w/ 66.

Now at this point others at the table are making comments, like "wow" "really thought he was weak there," and such. for the next 2-3 hours I notice everyone betting into him, I mean not many checks at all, I had to assume they we're going for 3 streets w/ any top pair +, not much pot control being shown.

I don't know what anyone had though, because he was folding. Folding at a rate I haven't seen before from this guy. he was still getting to the river more than most, but not calling.

So I think ok, he's realized that he "can't" call down light all the time. He's sick of paying off, everyone has noticed now, he thinks he has to adjust.

Next time I get in a spot with him, hours later, I take the same line of bet/check/bet after he limp/called a raise, board was 98373

he calls my river bet w/ T7, and was obviously good

The point I'm trying to make is, he did realize he was calling down much to light. he started making laydowns. losing the pots to me made him alter his calling range, but when it came back around to me, he reverted back to habit. He just couldn't fold to me.

I found this super interesting in that while recent history actually dictated a change in how he approached river situations in the immediate present, when it came to me he abandoned this and history and habit held true.

I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing he has played more hands with me than anyone else at the table. I'm wondering if there is a comfort element to it?

The more comfortable a person is in a certain situation, the more likely they are to be themselves, so this probably holds true in poker. There's less of a self ego. It doesn't matter as much because he's more comfortable in pots against me. There's less outside noise and clutter in his mind, and so the true "him" or his "real" game comes back out, maybe?

I've been thinking about this all day

So, I think you have now hit the LLSNL gold mine. You actually have a villain that thinks that you specifically are FOS. You should be always value betting this villain and be doing very little bluffing (maybe only when you have a draw and you think he may be on a flush or straight draw and you have no SDV. If he calls you on this type of bluff it will just reinforce his view of you). Besides, he may have been on draws on the hands you observed and he may still be a POW for everyone. You should always be profiling villains, but act on the information that you have. Make him prove he is not a POW before you change too much!

I am also sure that you know that the bet-check-bet line is a very good value line, but a very poor bluff one. They will always think, "why did he check turn if he has a good hand".

It's funny that you say that about the bet/check/bet line. Even though 2 hours earlier I used that line to win a big pot against him, while he was tanking otr in the T7 hand, he actually said out loud, "why wouldn't you bet a 9 ott!"

I was thinking jeez, does he not realize that the turn put a straight and a flush on board? I would check back every single 9 in that spot except maybe A9x sometimes.

this. the thing is villains do adjust sometimes, even bad ones. they just dont adjust as well as they should or they way overadjust. for example, the villain OP has mentioned has likely adjusted to everyone else by folding river a lot more. he is still likely making a lot of calling mistakes pre flop, on flop, and on turn though. against OP, villain has decided to call down light on river a lot more compared to what he does to others, because he never believes OP has a hand based on both recent history and past history . while that is an adjustment, its still obviously the wrong one since you can just valueown him and not bluff him. the thing about most players are that they are so passive and loose in nature, when they're up against an aggressive player, all they do is call more against that player. they dont fight aggression with aggression because they dont know how to without spewing all over