Pigeonholing Players and Levels

Iago

A follow on point from my post on Overvaluing sets.

When you first sit down at a table without reads on players, or with players that you have very few reads on, how do you associate them early on.

Do you believe that the glass is half-full or half empty? Do you assume that all players are muppets until proven otherwise, or cautiously assume that all players are skilled until proven otherwise? We know that 85-90% of online players are losing players overall, so conventional wisdom could argue that you should assume that all players are muppets until proven otherwise.

Maybe it's the cynic in me, or maybe I'm too used to seeing the strangest things in online poker, but I tend to play as though all other players are muppets unless I know otherwise. Or at least that's how I think I play, lately though I've found myself making decisions based on what I think they are holding with consideration to what I would be doing in that position.

If the line is consistent with how I would play a strong hand, then I react as if they have a strong hand, if the line is consistent with a weak/medium strength hand then I react as if they have that. Problem is that I feel I'm folding sometimes when I should be calling and I'm calling/raising when I should be folding. Honestly, I can't get over how many of these players really don't have the first idea of what they are holding.

So what snapshot judgement do you make on players when you sit down and how does it effect your play in the early hands at a table?

Imposter

I find the buy-in a person sits down with is fairly accurate to how good they are. Yes there will be exceptions but for initial pigeonholing it's a very good indicator. After a round or two at the table you pretty much know what they're like. In tournamnets and STT's I play pretty tight for a round or two and again by then you should have something to work on with all the players.