Player Types: Assumed, Observed, and Confirmed
When I sit down, I immediately size up my competition, putting each player into one of these categories of player types. Until I get evidence confirming the player type, my job is to pay attention to every hand and action, especially hole cards. Playing tight your first orbit, as poker experts have long advised, gives you time to observe the action. Within one orbit, you hope to pin down most of the players. After thirty hands, I might start changing my assessment of the player type depending on the action. Constant observation is key. I want to improve my discipline watching for the showdown. Hole card flash quickly, and if you’re looking away, you’ll miss them.
I assume all unknown players are loose passives: 70 percent of the players in my casino play too many hands too cheaply. They also expect to lose their money, that’s why most people are there. When a player over-limps with hands like 89o in MP, I can relax knowing the person is a loose passive. Tight-aggressive players are harder to pin down. Because they play fewer hands and take down hands without showing their cards, you have to observe them over larger samples than the loose-passive recreational players. Players who play hands passively by limping a lot reveal themselves by contrast within a few orbits.
I haven’t seen in any books much good advice on observing players. I’m especially interested in your opinions on what counts as evidence for a player type. In addition to revealed hole cards, what action can move a player from an assumed category to a confirmed one? Any ideas?
Confirmed loose passive
Open-limps
Over-limps twice in ten hands
Raises preflop, checks the flop
Called more than raised
Confirmed loose aggressive
Raises twice or more in early position in two orbits
Raises with KJo, 76s, or worse in early position
Confirmed very loose, very aggressive (maniac)
Tells you he just reinstated himself in the poker room after self-banning for gambling addiction.
Assumed tight passive
Has played three or fewer hands after thirty hands, a VPIP below 10.
Has not raised after 30 hands.
Confirmed Passive (assumed loose)
Limped or called with hands like QQ+, AK in the HJ
Assumed tight aggressive
Has raised more than called, especially in position.
Raised pre and went to showdown with 77+, AQ+
Talks about hands intelligently. Knows the dealers well.
Confirmed tight aggressive
Has showed tight-aggressive play over 200 hands
2 Replies
that is because they are playing in bigger private games if they are good.
I think you're right to assume that players are generally loose.
Ed Miller has an excellent piece in his book about Bayesian Inference, and an important part of that is your priori of the player pool, and how that changes as you get new data.
One interesting thing he walks through is that we as humans often jump to the type on small data sets, when you're assumptions should still be heavily weighted by priors.
He gives an excellent example of this on 3 betting, and how people start to assume that a player is agressive after 3 betting twice in a couple of rounds vs. them just being a typical 1/2 player who got lucky.
