the-poker-grafter

Last week I began discussing the importance I place in keeping detailed notes on opponents to prepare me for future encounters. This has to be a continuous work-in-progress as some players can behave inconsistently from one day to the next. This can be for a multitude of reasons, most of which you are unlikely to discover. But the tendency to ‘tilt’ – when you let emotions and other factors negatively affect your performance – has to be noted carefully. Obviously you want to be aware and remember if a rival can lose the plot, but don’t assume that this is the standard level of play you can expect in future. This would most likely be wishful thinking.

If I see a player make a hideous play then the temptation is to write him off. This temptation is multiplied about ten-fold if the said hideous play has resulted in my elimination, courtesy of a ridiculous badbeat. But when you remove emotion from the situation you have to allow for the possibility that the ‘maniac’ will play better in the future. What if this was comfortably the worst move that this player has made in weeks? Well if that was true then you would be foolish to ignore all future competence out of a lingering bitterness and end up under-estimating your opponent. If you do that then you’re liable to lose more big pots through your own poor play rather than a badbeat. It is therefore vital to only read so much into any one incident. In online games there needs to be the additional consideration that the one shocking play could actually have been nothing more than a ‘misclick.’ People are bound to press the wrong button on their mouse from time to time and occasionally this will work in their favour. Sickening, yes, but don’t make things worse for yourself by deleting all previous notes describing the player as very solid for what could have been a total accident.

When I think about what other players may think of me I’m led to an interesting conclusion. Most people who have played me dozens of times will probably have quite accurate notes about the way I play. However, what if the only major hand someone has played against me produced my worst moment of the week? Sadly it’s only too true that even I make mistakes and miscalculations. Let’s say for example that I made a big bluff on a mis-read, got called, but was then incredibly lucky on the river anyway and won. Now, I have to emphasise that this happens about once for every 50 times it happens to me. Nevertheless, based on this sole piece of evidence my opponent would probably be justified in assuming I’m a lucky fish; something that I hope not too many others would concur with. Who knows!

Almost all my player notes are based on how they play but this raises the salient point that where possible you must consider what they think of you. If a player does catch me on an extravagant bluff then I now try to note down that they did so, and therefore may be wary of me in the future. Of course, to be really thorough I could justifiably write down a note for every single player at the table that they may have observed me making a daring bluff. But this not only becomes a major effort but pushes note-taking into a dangerous and seamless new direction. Guessing what other people have observed and even more tenuously what they conclude is somewhere between very difficult and impossible. That said, there are normally people chatting at every table who make it very clear what they think and express openly their views on how the game should be played. Jotting down their comments into my own player notes is something I do frequently.

There is one format of tournament poker that I feel deserves a special mention with regard to note-taking though. Games with rebuy periods have to be given a special dispensation. The wild mayhem of that first hour can produce moments that those same individuals involved wouldn’t dream of in a freezeout. People who plunge all-in pre-flop with Q-9s are simply concerned with chip building and are probably more than happy to rebuy. This has to be recognised in player notes if they are to be of any worth whatsoever. It’s quite remarkable how many ‘experts’ are critical of loose aggression in this situation, failing to appreciate the unusual dynamic of the format. I would love to read the hysterical notes they come up with.

Perhaps the greatest irony of the player-noting internet practice is that you can’t use it after an opponent is eliminated and disappears from the table. This is often the most telling moment to comment on and yet there is often no time to do so. I’ll often get caught in a mad scramble trying to note that the guy who I assumed was ‘textbook tight’ has now pushed all-in from an early seat with 10-4 off-suit. But sometimes he is gone before it can be typed. The good news is that the characters who make shocking moves on a regular basis are highly likely to reveal that behaviour again early on in your next encounter.

If not seeing your opponent’s face and body language is seen as the major disadvantage of online poker then there are other benefits to it that the live game can’t offer up. One of the best things about the internet option is the capacity to build up a database of notes on every person you’ve ever played. In a live card room you can only rely on memory, as scribbling down an array of notes would be seen as inappropriate at best. For one thing, constantly reaching for your pen would kind of draw attention to the fact that something has grabbed your interest. The art of subtle observation would be lost, but this isn’t a concern in the privacy of your own home, in front of a laptop. I make player notes constantly, with a facility provided by every major site, and yet it amazes me that so many people don’t seem to bother.

Ideally, I want to have some sort of comment on every player I’ve ever played. This can seem pointless if they have drifted along without doing anything remotely ‘noteworthy’, but that in itself can be useful information to have. If I play somebody for and hour and they do everything by the book then I will classify them as ‘textbook’, ‘ok’ or ‘solid’. It’s nothing groundbreaking, but with this status I will give them a certain level of credit and make certain assumptions until I see something that tells me to think otherwise. This way if I play the same individual again two weeks later and he goes all-in on the first hand I can probably assume he has a good hand. The rationale would be that if he hasn’t made an adventurous move or a bluff in the previous hour of play with me then he is unlikely to be doing so now. But had I left this same player’s notes blank following the previous encounter it’s likely that I simply wouldn’t remember ever playing him. Consequently, I might be far more suspicious and liable to judge him on the merits of this one hand only. I would rather base a big decision on whatever experience I can draw upon.

Of course the easiest players to make notes on are the loosest ones, as they are giving out the most information. In an average 10-seat SNG the people who are playing the most hands early on, with the widest range of start cards will stand out. As a general rule if you keep playing any two high cards to a raise at a full table tournament, you will get yourself into trouble eventually. So for example, a player who keeps entering pots, particularly out of position with the likes of A-10, will probably get noted down by me as ‘loose dodgy’. And to be honest I don’t even need to see their cards to draw conclusions 90% of the time. To be blunt, the vast majority of highly active players in the early stages of SNGs are on borrowed time.

But as the SNG advances so too does the criteria I look for, from a note-taking perspective. As we reach the ‘bubble’ period of the game I want to know how the different players react. The classic good practice in these events is to accelerate as the blinds rise and opponents drop out. If a rival does this well then I want ‘good aggression bubble,’ down in writing. If a player takes this approach to a ridiculous extreme then I want to remember that they start plunging with any two cards, far too much. These people are infuriating as they knock me out with trash hands a seemingly disproportionate amount of the time, but I guess that’s why they do it! Nonetheless I will be enlightened for our next meeting and know that I need to defend my big blind with a wider range of cards against these ‘bubble maniacs’. That way I should get my chips in ahead with the likes of A-3… even if I still get beaten by 10-3o. At such times the scholarly notes do tend to have the odd expletive creep in to the text. But that’s ok, these words are for my eyes only and getting down some angry thoughts can be quite therapeutic and preferable to going on tilt.

Then there are the tight players who just get tighter when things get crucial. Suffice to say, these are among my favourite opponents and my notes on them are likely to say something like ‘tight, weak, brilliant.’ I know that these are the guys who will unwittingly encourage me to attack their blinds. But the best player of all in a SNG will have the phrase ‘decelerates’ next to his name. This is the character who plays loosely early on and gives your big hands a great chance of pay-off and double-up. He then crumbles and weakens at the exact time when loose aggression becomes more appropriate. Perfect! But inscribers beware. Contrary to popular belief it is possible for even this chip donator to learn the error of his ways and play better. Rarely the notes have to be updated with that terrible word: ‘improving.’ 

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker