Elements of hand reading

» COLUMN

Elements of hand reading

from firsttsunami

Poker is a game of incomplete information. In
some poker versions you have more information (for
example in the standard versions) and in some you will have less.

By way of comparison Hold'em is one of the types where you have little
information. This insufficiency of information leads
to the suspense at the poker table. The human curiosity of discovering
things that haven't been discovered yet and finding the solution to
riddles can be put into practice at a poker table very well.

When we speak of incomplete information we are essentially talking about the cards
of your oponents. We don't see the community cards preflop either, but
the cards from the opponents won't be visible the whole time. If we
knew the cards of the opponents we could play without making any
mistakes. We would see a showdown if we have the best hand and could
always fold correctly if the opponent has a better hand.

It would be too nice if there were a program that
makes the opponents cards visible. However, because this is not
possible and because the game would loose its appeal, we have to find
other ways to get information about the opponents' hand.

Other variables like the position, board texture
and betting patterns (bet sequences) enable us to draw conclusions
about the hands our opponent might be holding (hand range). We can only
get information about the hand of our opponent by systematically
assessing this information.

The more community cards are revealed and the more actions your
opponent has made, the less the information deficit and the easier it
is to put our opponent on a hand range. Retrieving this information is
also referred to as hand reading.

We have to try to read our opponent and his hand
in order to have an information advantage. This leads us to better
decisions and profitable situations. Our goal is to reach as many
decisions that have a positive expected value as possible. The
elements which are important for engaging in hand reading, to be more
precise, putting an opponent on a hand range, and the systematical
approach are dealt with in this column.

The systematical approach is very logical and not
hard to understand. Our starting point is preflop. We receive some
information from our opponent through how he acts.

Normally an opponent either raises or folds.
Considering the position of the opponent, his stats and a chart, e.g.
the open raising chart, we can reach a first conclusion about his hand
range.

We will receive the last bit of information on the
river through the last card and the behaviour of the opponent. We will
also reach the last decision here. Do we follow through until the
showdown or not. In the course of the hand, from preflop all the way to
the river, we have to assess the necessary variables (which are
interdependent), to gather as much information as possible.

There are several variables in poker. The art
and the difficulty is to put these variables into perspective in order
to paint a complete picture rather than assessing the different
variables on their own.

1) Your hand(range). For example A9

2) Your position

3) The board texture / the board (draw heavy, connected, high- to low card relationship)

4) The position of your opponent

5) The betting patterns of the opponent in the hand

6) General betting patterns of the opponent

7) History (earlier hands against one or more opponent and reads which developed because of this)

8) Hand range of the opponent preflop, measured by his stats

GENERALLY IMPORTANT: The range of your opponent influences
our equity significantly. This in turn tells us whether an action is
positive EV or negative EV. As mentioned in the introduction, we only
want to reach decisions that have a positive expected value.

The aim of hand reading is not to put an opponent
on an exact hand, but rather reducing the number of possible hands by
assessing the relative behaviour of the different variables in the
course of the hand.

To put an opponent on a range, we have to make
some assumptions keeping the variables in mind. This means: How does
the opponent play certain hands in a certain situation?

Exceptions can be made if you have a special read
on your opponent. Assumptions we derive from reads are based a lot on
the theoretical concepts that you learn by reading and working through
all the articles.

If you don't have any information about
your opponent at all, you should imagine playing against yourself and think
about which plays make sense in certain situation on the basis of the
theoretical concepts.

However it is easier if you do have a read on your
opponent which could tell you something about the tendencies of the
opponent. We can reach much better assumptions if we are playing
against a TAG because generally he won't for example pure
bluff against two people on the river. It is very useful to be able to
put yourself in the position of the opponent in order to create reads
on him.

Example

5.00/10.00 Fixed-Limit Hold'em (6 handed)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A, J
MP2 raises, 3 folds, Hero 3-bets, BB folds, MP2 calls.

Flop: (7.00 SB) 3, 3, 2 (2 players)
Hero bets, MP2 raises.

Final Pot: 5.00 BB

The opponent is a reasonable TAG with
(22/18/2.4/36) stats. He raises from UTG and raises the 332 flop in
position after he raised our 3-bet from the small blind before the flop. By the process of
elimination and on the basis of the variables 4) and 8) we can
definitely say that he can't be holding a 3, because there are no
plausible hand combinations that he raises from UTG which include a 3.
The same applies for the 2. We follow the same line of though in every
hand.

It is our goal to put our opponent on a hand
range. We have already eliminated the 3 and the 2. Using plausible
assumptions, we have to define his hand range now.

He will practically never bluff raise the flop
because we three bet his UTG-open raise, which usually is pretty strong, and often have a pocket
pair and also see a showdown with ace high on such a board => He has
very little fold equity making a bluff unprofitable. We can therefore
exclude all unpaired hands.

The opponent would have capped a pocket pair like
JJ++. However he only called the 3bet. He most likely only has a pocket
pair like TT at max. This suggests that our outs for the J and A are
usually clean outs.

The synthesis from these assumptions is that he probably has a pocket pair like 44, 55, 66,
77, 88, 99, TT.

We don't have to evaluate our equity in this
situation because we cannot see a showdown unimproved because the
opponent has a better hand. The question in this hand is whether we can
see the river keeping the concept of odds & outs in mind.

Flop: (7.00 SB) 3, 3, 2 (2 players)
Hero bets, MP2 raises, Hero calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) 8 (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 Bets, Hero?

We only called the flop raise. The pot is at 6.5
BB including the bet from MP2 on the turn. As we have 6 outs against
all pocket pairs, we can assume to have implied odds of at least 1BB
(probably even more in the case of a check/raise/call).

We get 6.5 + 1 = 1:7.5 for another call. We only
need 1:7 with 6 outs. We can therefore call the turn. We should donk if
an ace hits and check raise if a jack hits.

The opponent could have made a set with pocket 88
and in the case of improving our hand we have reverse implied odds of at least
-1BB, but the likelihood of him making a set is very low. The
probability is 3/39 = 1:13. There are tree possibilities to make a set and 39 card combinations 44, 55, 66, 77,
88, 99, TT. If we are unimproved until the river, we would obviously
fold.

Assuming we were to change one variable. We are not playing against a
reasonable TAG, but against a LAG (34/23,2.8/40). The chain of cause
and effect obviously changes now.

Different opponents => different assumptions => different hand range => changed equity => different decision

Flop: (7.00 SB) 3, 3, 2 (2 players)
Hero bets, MP2 raises, Hero calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) 8 (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 Bets, Hero?

We are faced with the same situation. We have to put the LAG player on a range and see whether we can see a showdown.

In the example above we assumed that a reasonable
TAG would practically never bluff here. This is different if you are
playing against a LAG player. It is much more likely that he is going
to bluff to try to take the pot down with for example QTs because he is
unreasonable and thinks that we don't have anything here as well and
fold on the turn or the river. We now have to determine how often he
has to 3barrel his bluff so that we can see a showdown.

With a 23% PFR he has *0.75 (UTG-multiplier) from UTG roughly 17% PFR

99-33,AJs-A6s,K9s+,Q9s+,JTs,AJo-ATo,KTo+,QTo+ <- 213 combinations

His raise/call range could look like this

We take the range against which we are behind at
first and add as many pure bluffs as needed so that we can call down
profitably. At first we assess how much equity we need from the turn
onwards:

EV(Call down) > 0, if EQ > Losses / (Profit + Losses)
Losses = Investment up to the showdown 2BB
Profit = Pot on the turn
EV(Call down) > 0, if EQ > 2 / 6.5 + 1BB + 2 = 21%

In the worst case we would need 21% equity to be able to call down.

We now add some hands which he could bluff with, because he might think that we would fold a better high card like a king.

Board: 3c 3d 2h 8d Ks
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand
0: 77.500% 77.50% 00.00% 31 0.00 { 99-33, QcTd, QcTh, QcTs, QdTc, QdTh,
QdTs, QhTc, QhTd, QhTs }
Hand 1: 22.500% 22.50% 00.00% 9 0.00 { AsJs }

We have added 75% of his QTo holdings. Even if he
only bluffs 3 out of 4 times all the way to the river, we can see a
showdown. 12 combinations of QTo are only 6% of 213 combinations. The
likelyhood of him bluffing doesn't have to be very large to call the
river unimproved.

Conclusion: Only small changes in the assumptions can have a large implication on our decision. We
only added 3/4 of a hand and already have enough equity to call the river instead of folding. As you can see here, a very
important part of hand reading is to learn how to estimate probabilities
correctly!

What exactly are reads and how do I make
assumptions on the basis of reads? Reads are nothing more than a
characteristic of the opponent. The sum of these characteristics of an opponent can
be summaries in an opponent profile.

We make use of categories when
creating an opponent profile. We categorize the opponent in general
categories and create sub categories in each general category.
In the model below, we ask some questions for each category that are
essential to be able to create a read and to determine your further
proceedings.

Categories

• Preflop play
• Flop play
• Turn play
• River play

Subcategory preflop play

• Does his play deviate from his stats at all?
• Does he cap for deception?
• Does he call 3bets in position for deception with hands like AA?

Sub category flop play

• Does he make any loose flop calls?
• Does he raise as a pure bluff a lot on the flop?
• Does he make any bluff calls?
• Does he play passively in position for bluff induce or rather aggressive?
• Which kinds of made hands does he raise on the flop?

Sub category turn play

• Should you bet again unimproved?
• Does he raise on the turn as a pure bluff?
• How do I react to a raise?
• Does he raise a lot on the turn for a free showdown?
• Does he only raise strong made hands on the turn or does he raise weaker ones too?
• Does he semi bluff a lot on the turn or does he play his draws passively?
• Can he fold a better hand on the turn for another bet?

Sub category River

• Does the opponent delay his strong hands until the river?
• Is he capable of bluff raising the river?
• How loose or tight does he call the river (Can I value bet, does he call or fold ace high)
• Does he bluff if I check to him => Do I have to make a tough check/fold?
• Does the opponent fold his ace high frequently on the river => How effective is a third bluff bet?

You can go into more depth about any question or
information, but most of the time we only have limited information
about the opponent and can't evaluate all questions or save every piece
of information and recall it quickly.

Example 1

5.00/10.00 Fixed-Limit Hold'em (6 handed)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 9, 8
4 folds, Hero raises, BB calls.

Flop: (4.00 SB) K, 4, 2 (2 players)
Hero bets, BB calls.

Turn: (3.00 BB) 7 (1 players)
Hero bets.

Final Pot: 4.00 BB

The opponent is a LAG (37/25/2.6/43). We have the following information as a note for the player:

• raises small pairs on the flop
• floates on the flop
• high "fold to turn bet" value
• call flop, raise turn = top pair
• likes to bluff raise unconnected and dry flops

We have the initiative with 98s and bet the flop.
Now the assumptions come into play. We resort to our note and see that the opponent calls very loose on the flop.

Calling loosely on the flop and a  high "fold to
turn bet" value are connected in some way. We can reach the assumption
that the opponent would call on this board with a single high card as
well as with hands like T-Q high.

As he will
have top pair less frequently than an unimproved T-Q high combination,
we should bet the turn again and fold to a raise. However the read says that he
raises small pairs on the flop, so that we can basically reduce his range to top
pair and we will be drawing dead very often and have to fold.

Example 2

5.00/10.00 Fixed-Limit Hold'em (6 handed)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A, T
2 folds, CO calls, BU folds, Hero raises, BB calls, CO calls.

Flop: (6.00 SB) 9, 5, 2 (3 players)
Hero bets, BB calls, CO calls.

Final Pot: 4.50 BB

We open raised AT
and the LAG is in the BB this time and only defended his blind. CO
limped preflop. We make a continuation bet on the flop and the LAG
calls.

We resort to our note again and see that he would have normally raised
any pocket pair. We can therefore assume that he is unimproved and only
calls to hit one of his outs. This in turn leads us to the conclusion
that we will be ahead quite often with ace high and good kicker
because he would have raised any pair on the flop and 3-bet better aces
like AT+ before the flop.

You can't reach a correct assumption without a read on the opponent.
He could be anything from a calling station to a maniac on tilt. You
can only define tendencies without an accurate read.

You shouldn't make the mistake of judging your
opponent based on your correct game theory. You can't really say
whether the opponent in example 2) really hit the flop or not. You can
only determine that it is unlikely that the opponent hit the flop
because it would have been correct to raise the flop. Furthermore smaller cards like 2,
5 and a 9 can only be played with less other cards than with an ace.

You should always ask yourself how you would have
reacted in these situations yourself, but you can only define tendencies than making an absolute assumption. Generally you can tell
whether an opponent is a good or bad player after a single hand.

An indicator for this is for example a line which
isn't logical. For example: check/call check/call check/raise or
check/call check/raise in a multiway pot. You shouldn't make any moves
against unknowns but rather play straight forward. Furthermore you
shouldn't get involved in any marginal situations, or make any tough
lay downs but try to see more showdowns.

However, in example 2) if a deuce hits on the
turn, which basically is a blank, and the opponent raises your bet, it
doesn't necessarily mean that he is always bluffing because, as far as
we know, he should have raised a pair on the flop.