2 new classifications - Page 2

FaDi · #11 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008, 07:37 PM

So what you're suggesting is a by the numbers labeling of a player, and a personality way of labeling a player?

Steve-O · #12 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008, 07:41 PM

I'm using loose-tight, and passive-aggressive as my main classification

loose/aggressive = 1
tight/aggressive = 2
loose/passive = 3
loose/aggressive = 4

the decision making and deception are sub categories, giving us a total of 16 classifications

emotional/deceptive = 1
logical/deceptive = 2
emotional/straightforward = 3
logical/straightforward = 4

So, a loose/aggressive, emotional/straightforward player is 1.3

A tight/aggressive, logical/deceptive is a 2.2 (obviously a dangerous player)

Therefore:

Any player who starts with a 2 is good

Any player with a .2 is what I would deem dangerous to a basic strategy

A 2.2 player is a pretty certain bet to be good and dangerous

And obviously youcould come up with ways to adjust to different types

MJPerry · #13 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008, 09:08 PM

Oh dear, he's introduced too many numbers.

KRE8R · #14 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-O

I'm using loose-tight, and passive-aggressive as my main classification

loose/aggressive = 1
tight/aggressive = 2
loose/passive = 3
loose/aggressive = 4

the decision making and deception are sub categories, giving us a total of 16 classifications

emotional/deceptive = 1
logical/deceptive = 2
emotional/straightforward = 3
logical/straightforward = 4

So, a loose/aggressive, emotional/straightforward player is 1.3

A tight/aggressive, logical/deceptive is a 2.2 (obviously a dangerous player)

Therefore:

Any player who starts with a 2 is good

Any player with a .2 is what I would deem dangerous to a basic strategy

A 2.2 player is a pretty certain bet to be good and dangerous

And obviously youcould come up with ways to adjust to different types

This is actually pretty sweet Steve-O. Only problem is the secondary ones seem like they could be kinda marginal to go on. Like so often people could be an even mix of two different types of stats.

WeakTight · #15 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008, 09:36 PM

Very good logic. The difficulty becomes how to effectively classify these players when playing online, possibly multitabling. (live play I can see these things being easy). I think when playing online, you can only assign these new classifications for players who you've played with a great deal, for how can you tell if someone played a hand deceptively/emotionally, without a good understanding of their regular game.

jharding666 · #16 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 01:12 AM

I think the basic principle here is good but as others have already said I think you need a lot of hands on a guy before you can assign the second category. Given the nature of online poker there often aren't many players you get that familiar with

WotaWaster · #17 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 01:45 AM

I'm not sure how easy it is to quantify these new scales.

Tight - Loose and Passive - Aggressive are both linear scales and are very easy to statistically measure and compare.

Decision making and Deception probably require more specific notes such as "always limps with AA", "prone to tilt after dropping a buy in" etc.

Steve-O · #18 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 05:35 AM

true, this is why I put them as approximately 10x less value than tight/loose, passive/aggressive.

I like the way it was explained as a by the numbers chart and then a personality type chart. I also have 4 graphs where I show from extreme to extreme, and then an optimal range. I might possibly be able to post these later on tonight.

The ideas are based on personality type so you do have to have a feel for the person. I agree it will work better live. But things like someone bitching a lot in the chat or raising 3 hands in a row after a bad beat can be quite telling.

doublemoney4 · #19 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 09:19 AM

hmm...
i sort of like the brainstorming session. but in my most humble opinion, i think if it ain't broke, don't fix it. poker terms are confusing as is, no need to reinvent the wheel. hope im not being to negagtive, buts that my opionion.