What's in a name?
Often people will send me a hand and say "what should I do here?" and usually the first response I'll have is "got any reads?" We all know why reads are important, but sometimes, especially those who play at stakes where the player pool is enormous, we encounter situations where it's simply impossible to know what type of player we're against. So the response I get back is "they're unknown."My contention is that rarely is a player COMPLETELY unknown. There's information we have about everyone -- even if it's the first hand we've played with them. Some of this information might include their screen name, their picture or avatar (if the site has those), the current stakes we're playing, if they're on multiple tables, and more. By thinking outside the box a bit and by using our past experiences to our advantage, it's sometimes easier to get a leg up on the 'unknowns'.
What I'd like to talk about today is a collection of my experiences and the tendencies I've noticed regarding the basic information we have when encountering an otherwise unknown opponent.
Let's take the first and most obvious one, their screen name. I've noticed a lot of things about screen names in the past half million hands of poker I've played. Here are some basic attributes of screen names and what I've encountered. Keep in mind, none of these observations are fool proof or 100% accurate but the tendencies are there. For the sake of each attribute, I'll try to identify the players as generally "very good", "above average", "below average", or "they suck" when possessing each attribute.
- "-ie" sounding names... jackie, willie, corey, eddie: Believe it or not, players whose screen names contain these types of names are below average. I'm not kidding. Generally they are happy-go-lucky and too loose preflop. It also suggests they are using their real first name in their screen name, which can also be a 'below average' sign....please note the latter tendency isn't nearly as strong as the former. Seriously, I'm not making this up.
- "leet speak" names: Names that contain "lol", "lmao", "pwn", and similar. Names with this type of verbiage are typically used by people very familiar with the internet and technology. Those types of people are also typically the type that have spent enough time online to know where to find information they need and delve deep into it. Chances are if you're playing against someone with one of these names, they use poker forums or at least an IM service and probably talk about poker with their friends...which is a sign they are at least trying to think critically about the game. Generally "leet speak" players are better than average.
- "kgb" names: a la the movie Rounders and Teddy KGB - the antagonist of the movie. Players with "kgb" in their screen name almost always suck. There is a very strong correlation here and one you should keep in mind. They probably watch poker movies/tv shows, think everyone they see on any TV tournament is a great player, and probably have very little idea of poker strategy in general -- but they are in tuned with meta-poker stuff...tv poker, movies, gossip...in terms of live poker, they probably love chip tricks and think that's a sign of an expert player.
- "poker hands" names: Any screen name that has to do with a poker hand or a poker hand "slang" name. Big slick, AA, pawket rawkets. Someone with poker hand names in their screen name are nearly always in the "suck" category, or at best, at the bottom of the "below average" category. These players are trying to play the part of a poker player. They want to use these terms and have a screen name with them because they think those who use these terms are "in the know" as far as poker goes, and they want to be associated with it. Likely these are the same that won't go to the casino without their PartyPoker.com hat, reflector shades, and the ipod. Some actual screen names I know of in this category: BadCardsAA, dontplayacequeen, netwocards.
- Star Wars names: That's right...I think it actually deserves it's own category. People with names related to Star Wars tend to be in a similar category as the "leet speak" players -- "above average". Typically those associating themselves with star wars are the 'gamer geek' types, who also tend to be well adapted to the Internet and finding information. You can lump these guys in with the leet speak players as they are more likely than your average player to seek out strategy forums and think critically. An example screen name in this category is JediPokerTrix on FTP. He's one of the best 5/10nl regulars there. Other examples exist, keep an eye out.
- Numbers in the screen name: Have you ever looked at a screen name that has numbers prepended or appended to a word, and wondered what these numbers mean? Sometimes you can figure out it's a year, or a birthdate, or sometimes they appear random. There's also the ever-so-popular "69" you'll see appended to many-a-donk. I don't have a blanket thought about those with numbers in their screen name, becaues it's too wide spread, but there are tendencies related to these numbers. I can say with confidence that just about anyone I've encountered that has '69' in their screen name is terrible. You can take that one to the bank. I've also noticed that those who have more than 3 digits appended to the end of their screen name are in the 'below average' category. I'm not sure why that is, but it seems to hold true for the most part. I've noticed no correlation with simply a single, double, or triple digit number, aside from the previously mentioned 69.
- "badbeat" screen names: Anything having to do with "sucking out" or putting a "bad beat" on you is a clear sign of suckage. I'd say the correlation is very strong in this category. I_badbeat_U and the similar are almost always a sign of someone who attributes all their results with luck (or un-luck), and similarly they aim to play hands in which they can put a "bad beat" on someone. There's at least one screen name I can think of that is the direct opposite of my contention here, but the vast majority follow suit with being either 'below average' or 'sucking'.
- Names in all capital letters: I don't know why, but throughout my poker career, those who have all caps in their name tend to be below average players. This is a weaker correlation than some of the other categories, but I felt like it was worth mentioning. Certainly you can think of counter examples, as can I, but for unknowns I think there's enough of a correlation for it to be mentioned here.
Next, I'd like to focus on another piece of information we have on otherwise unknown players: The avatar. On sites like pokerstars, players can choose their own custom image to use as an avatar, or have none at all. There's a lot of information to be extracted based on what a person chooses for their custom picture -- and knowledge is power. Here are a few categories to look for:
- Dog, Girlfriend, Child: You might have heard me talk about this in the video I posted a couple months ago, but it is almost an infallible, tell tale sign of a donkey. Take it to the bank. Dog, Girlfriend, or Child (in order from weakest to strongest correlation) almost always means donator. The strongest being their child. If you see a baby or junior decked out in his little league uniform, then prepare to cancel your dinner plans because you need to stay at the table until he leaves or is broke.
- Rapper or Super hero: Typically these players are almost always 'above average' or 'good'. In the case of the rappers, often these players buy into the whole "straight ballin'" line of over the top internet poker players. They want to associate themselves with flashy things or they possess the over the top confidence that every rapper has. Similarly with the super hero, they want to be associated with those who have super human powers, as they believe they have on the poker table. In either case, the player's confidence is high and there's typically a reason for that -- continued sucecss.
- No avatar at all: If a player doesn't have an avatar, there could be a few reasons. a) perhaps he doesn't want one because he doesn't want his opponents to link his play style with a visual image. It's a very good reason and a sign of a thinking player. b) perhaps he's just new to the site. Newer players tend to be less skilled on average, since most regular players on the big sites have accounts on all the major sites. I don't think you can draw much of a conclusion by the lack of avatar, but if I was forced to choose, I'd say no avatar would lean slightly towards the 'below average' camp, simply because new players want to play asap, not worry about avatars.
The other side of that coin is that if an unknown player does have an avatar, at least you know he's been around long enough to get it all set up, so at the very least his bankroll has survived at least week or so (it takes time for some sites to approve your custom avatar). I can't put everyone with an avatar into one of my predetermined categories for obvious reasons, but it's at least something to consider that although the player is unknown, he's not completely foreign to the poker site. - Picture of money: It's all about the benjamins, baby -- except not for these players. Believe it or not, most of the people I see with an avatar that contains dollar bills fall into the 'suck' category. My theory is that it's part of their way of reinforcing the lies they tell themselves. They tell themselves they are winning players, they want others to also think that, and by showing a picture of money, you're supposed to associate money/winning with the player. Don't be fooled, it's almost always the exact opposite. This correlation is one of the stronger ones, in my experience.
- A picture of themselves with sunglasses on: Of course you can never know for sure that the person behind the keyboard is the same as the one in the pic, but it's pretty easy to assume, especially if said player is at a poker table with a stern poker face and the donned sunglasses. Take this one to the bank, they suck. They might not be super loose, but invariably they aren't strong players. Again, it's not an absolute, it's a tendency, but this trend is strongly correlated to my assessment of suckage.
- Power Ranger avatar: I saved this one for last, because it's the strongest of them all. If you see a player who has an avatar of a Power Ranger -- prepare to get stacked.
That's all I've got in terms of avatars, but there are some other tendencies I'd like to talk about. A pretty strong tendency of an unknown is how much they buy in for. Let's say we're playing my main game right now - 5/10nl game, buyin is $1000. Different sites have different default buyins. I believe Pokerstars has a default buyin of $600 for this game. Full Tilt is $400 I believe. In any case, if you see a player sitting with the default amount or an amount less than the maximum, you can infer he's a weaker opponent. An example would be someone who is playing on a short roll and doesn't want to buy in full. For obvious reasons, they tend to be weaker competition (why do they have a short roll in the first place, why are they playing games they aren't rolled for, etc etc). Perhaps they are used to 3/6nl and they aren't comfortable risking the full buyin for the higher stakes. There's nothing wrong with that, but they typically will be weaker players.
Another example of a buy-in tell is if they buy in for a really odd amount, say they sit at a 5/10 game with $863.72. That's a pretty tell tale sign that they're sitting with their whole bankroll on the line, looking to take a shot and get lucky. In cases such as these, 9 times out of 10 they are VERY weak players. These odd buyin sizes are nearly always a sign of a player that just wants to gamble it up and double or go broke (and they often go broke very easily). It's worth noting that these players are also the ones who are most likely to "hit-n-run" and insta-leave if they do double up.
Going in a different direction, if you play in games such as 5/10nl+, the player pool shrinks quite noticably with each step up in stakes you make. You really become familiar with almost all of the players because there just arent that many. When you encounter a new player at the higher stakes, especially up at 25/50+, I'm told by those who play there that unknowns are almost always pussies. They are playing on scared money, they are often underrolled, and they can be pushed around. I dont believe you find this much at 10/20nl and below, but it's worth pointing out as something to think about. There's no way any generalization can be made like this at lower stakes because the player pool is so huge.
When evaluating an unknown, it should go without saying that you have to consider the stakes you're playing. An unknown at 25/50nl is quite different than an unknown at 0.25/0.50nl. You can expect the unknown player, and even the poor players, to be quite a bit better at 25/50nl when compared to someone at 0.25/0.50nl. When you're faced with a decision, you have to ask yourself what a TYPICAL player would do in a certain situation at the given stakes, not necessarily what YOU would do.
Additionally, you have information as to how many other tables a given player is on. You can either quickly glance in the lobby, or some sites even offer you the ability to search for a player by their name. It's usually worth keeping a tab who is multitabling and who isn't. You'll be able to pull more moves against those who are multitabling and it also tells you that they probably have at least some idea as to what they're doing because if they didn't they'd go broke much quicker seeing so many more hands.
I think I've outlined some pretty good points in this blog. What other tendencies have you noticed? Did I leave anything big out? Leave me a comment with the tendency, how strong the correlation is, and what category you place the player in (good/above average/below average/suck) and if it makes sense I'll edit this entry and stick your contribution in. Also let me know if you think I'm way off base in any of these categories. I put a lot of thought into this entry since it's been something I had been thinking about for quite a while.
I think these ideas are examples of things that most players don't really consider. You should be using all the information you have at your disposal to formulate the correct action to take on a hand. When you get into a marginal situation against a player you just aren't sure about, and there are multiple viable options, you should be using these generalizations to help tip the scale to the most correct action. You may be surprised how often these stereotypes ring true.
Good luck,
Aaron
posted by WiltOnTilt at 7:20 PM
5 Comments:
Hahaha, great post.
I was actually planning to make a similar post, but I think you nailed it pretty well.
My own personal telltale sign is any player name ending with "111". They almost always suck!
Nice post, didn't see girl names on there. Typically girl names are pretty bad.
Is Wilt your middle name or nickname? Curious how you came up with your name.
LP
Hey Lou, good point about female names... I should add that in there.
Wilt is my last name, hence my screen name. Not so much since I moved to KC, but in high school/college, everyone called me by my last name.
Aaron
The red power ranger is the strongest
Post a Comment