Assuming you're playing live or at a table with no HUDS, how many times should you see a villain take a certain line or perform a certain action before you can write it off as a tendency (or unbalanced action I guess)?

For example, let's say you've seen villain limp pre then call a raise on 4 different occasions so far. Would that be enough to write them off as loose passive preflop?

In another example, let's say you've seen villain call from the blinds and check raise the flop about 3 different times so far. Would that be enough times to warrant adjusting?

2x with a lot of these fishys

gl

Well couldn't the villain have gotten 4 pocket pairs on those different occasions (assuming this is live). Also couldn't villain have actually had the nuts 3 different times so far?
For me it depends on a lot of other factors as well if im going to adjust/try to exploit this villain... usually u'll be able to tell esp if this guy is playing every single hand and very agro in the first few minutes he prolly has a bluffing range...

Also pay attention to cards when they go to showdown and on later streets usually u will be able to get a feel for their tendencies when like completely read less/5 minutes into a sesh or w/e.

Lastly, population tendencies at whatever stake ur playing @ helps if u start off readless.

Yes in both cases.

In the first instance, assuming you're playing low stakes poker, you should assume that all V's are loose passive until proven otherwise. limp-calling 4 times would certainly fit the bill. I'd punish their limps for big raises when I have a good hand. Note though that doesn't necessarily mean they're passive post-flop, though it's pretty likely.

In the second case, flop check-raises are not super common. To see someone do it three times from the blinds (where they only get two chances an orbit to do so) suggests it's a move they like. I'd c-bet this player less until further notice, particularly with hand with showdown value that can't withstand a check-raise. I'd be more apt to get stacks in with a wider range than normal (maybe go bet/3-bet with TPTK as opposed to bet/fold).

Some actions only need to occur once for me to put a lot of stock in it, especially if they get to showdown. If I see someone flat call with a very strong hand on the river (like the other day where someone flatted a single bet with 33 on a J9443 board) I proceed very, very cautiously if I ever see them raise.

I often make reads based on one hand.

If someone limp-calls (or limp-folds, or limp-reraises) UTG, he's a fish. If the hand gets shown down, and it's something stupid like K7o, the read is confirmed. Weird **** like that is only a misclick about 5% of the time.

Conversely, I give very little value to HUD stats for a 3-hand sample where someone played 67/33, but I didn't follow the action. A stat like that in a vacuum would be pretty much meaningless, because a player like that might turn out to be a nit, a maniac, or a loose passive that happened to wake up with aces once.

I think you should look out for the stuff that you know is definitely bad/exploitable. (Buying in for 87.34bb and limping the first two hands would be good signs of a fischigespieler).

+1

In live poker, you just don't have the time to wait until you're statistically certain about whether something is a pattern or not. If I see someone fold the SB with it limped around, I'm going to assume they are at least a tight player and deserve further attention to see if they play more in position and/or raise more than call. If someone calls down the river and shows TP, I assume they won't fold to pressure.

Depends really..
Just my opinion...

two to three times if micro/low stakes
about ten times for mid/high stakes

limp calling is not only usually a bad play, it's a very common bad play at low stakes. if someone does it even on one occasion, they are likely doing it with a hand they shouldn't be doing it with, and are likely to do it again, and very often.

check raising the flop isn't a bad play. ask yourself whether it's more likely to encounter a player at your stakes with a tendency to over check-raise, or a player to flop 3 really good hands in the span of x hands. also, correlate it with other reads on a player to build a profile, e.g, someone who check raises flop a lot is usually aggressive in other spots too.

At the micros the player pool is huge so you may not have enough hands on a lot of players to compile thorough, reliable notes.
I make a note of anything I think could be of assistance in a later hand. For example villain slowplaying a strong hand on a wet board. Its all subject to review so if I see something that contradicts what I originally though about a player at a later point Il update/correct the player notes.

Time and actually seeing the holding are very important when evaluating an opponent. But I also agree you don't generally have a lot of time to evaluate either.

When faced with new players you really need to play the ABC line and give 'extra' credit initially and then hope to see a few showdowns or see some reactions to the other players at the table when the opponent acts 'the same'.

1) What kind of boards where they
2) How many players were in the hand
3) How deep are the stacks
4) Were there any showdowns previously

At low stakes against unknowns you probably should error to the side of ABC .. It is what it is, until proven otherwise. Your question is how long until 'otherwise' kicks in? I think it could be one hand if other factors in your profile fit with the one-hand action ... or it could be a few session against a player before you can lock them in. GL

This is really interesting stuff :>.

Is it?
FWIW, I once watched a couple of vids made by TheDefiniteArticle, and I was struck by how much colour-coding he did based on "insta-reads". He was playing Zoom, and while waiting for the action to reach him, he was basically marking any unknown with a weird stack size as "probably a fish". Anyone that limped was also immediately given the green colour.
Unfortunately, knowing that someone is "probably a fish" doesn't immediately give you a way of exploiting them (not all fish play the same way, ldo), so it's crucial to find out as soon as possible what kind of ways they are exploitable. Seeing showdowns helps enormously in that regard. Notes like "check-raises weak top pair after limp-call", or "slowplays set on wet board multiway" tell you much more than "Played 67/0 over three hands".

FWIW OP I think this is an excellent question, and I think it's a question that highlights just how awful variance can be in this game.

I remember (vividly) early in my micros career I had a villain in the BB 3-bet my BTN open like 5 times out of 7. At that point I didn't know how to handle that so I'd just fold weaker hands. On the 8th hand I got AQo, opened it from the BTN and he 3-bet me and I was absolutely sure he was just trying to bully me with rags so I shoved. He called and flipped over QQ.

Now was he just bullying me with rags the first 5 times and got lucky, or did he just have a statistically improbable run of good hands? I'll never know.

I'll give another example: On a cruise ship there was a guy who was CLEARLY trying to bully the table. 4 would limp, he'd raise to like 12bb, everyone would call, the flop would come and he'd c-bet 2/3 of the pot and everyone folds. After doing that four or five times he apparently couldn't take it anymore and flipped over the 53o he was bluffing with.

Now CLEARLY with a player like that you know he usually has garbage on the flop. One only flops ONE PAIR (and I mean ANY one pair much less top pair with a decent kicker) about 1/3 of the time. But it takes guts to play back at a guy like that because you usually have to commit your whole stack to do it. "What if this is the ONE TIME he has something?" is always on your mind.

I know that's not an answer to your question but I hope it at least gave you some perspective.

Lmaoooooo this is me like a MF

I remember the first time I took a shot at 5NL I had one of the aggressive Brazilians on my left who kept min 3betting me everytime I opened until I said f u and 4bet shoved back... right into aces

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

For live poker I'm trying to make reads as soon as I see someone. I like to ask myself questions like these:

1)Does the way they approach the table or take their seat give me any clues to their mindset? Do they look nervous? focused? like they are a little drunk and looking to have some fun? - People often don't put on their poker face until after they sit down.

2)How are they dressed? How do they handle their chips? Do they seem focused on the cards or the players? Do they seem distracted within a few minutes of sitting down?

3)Obvious stuff like do they post the blind OOP, what is the first hand they play, do they act quick or slow on 'simple' decisions, etc.

I try not to make any hard conclusions about how they will play based on this kind of stuff (eg. sometimes the drunk guys are really good players), but it can give me little clues so I can start piecing together the puzzle. My initial read often changes completely, but it's in the right ballpark way more than random guesses.

tl;dr - any info at all is useful for establishing an initial read, but don't forget to question and adjust your impressions when you get new info.


EDIT: In my opinion any check-raise from any position is something you need to pay a lot of attention to. If someone has done it even once, I'm more likely to dump a bunch of marginal calling hands if I'm facing a Cbet and they will have a chance to XR. Seeing them XR differentiates them from at least half of the player pool (in live 2-5 or lower). Probably more than one XR before I adjust my Cbetting, and it would take a lot of check-raises before I significantly adjust my range for calling/3betting them, unless of course they are doing other things to suggest they are a bit wild.