hmmm, good topic

When you are determining what your opponent has you have to play detective. Start with a wide list of suspects, Look at all the pieces of evidence, be willing to change your opinion based on new evidence, and come to the most logical conclusion.

The key piece of evidence is the hands he has played before in these situations. This is your initial suspect list. with a tight player raising from UTG you could say TT-AA, AK, AQ, AJs, KQs, but also allow for other more unlikely hands 22-99 or suited connectors in case he is being tricky. With a tight player you can rule out hands like A9 and KT.

The next piece of evidence is any tell or telegraph you have on this on person. This obviously does not hold true online but is important live.

Next is his reaction to a re-raise. If noone re-raises then you ignore this. Suppose in our tigfht player example he gets re-raised and just calls (so 2 players see the flop). If your experience tells you he would cap with QQ, KK, AA, and possibly AK. you can move these hands down to our unlikely suspect list.

At this point our main suspects are, TT, JJ, AQ, AJs, KQs. With unlikely but possible suspects of QQ, KK, AA, AK, 22-99, and suited connectors.

Suppose the flop is A93, our tight player check-raises the other player. 2 things to think about

#1 is this player tricky, capable of check-raise bluffing? lets assume no so he has a hand.

#2 does he pay attention and realize the other player who 3 bet will bet if checked to? lets assume the 3 better is a good player and the tight player knows this. it would be even more unlikely that his check-raise is a bluff since the good player represented a big hand pre-flop.

now we reexamine our suspect list; with an ace on the board and a check-raise I would move TT, JJ, and KQs down to the unlikely list and move AK, 99, 33 back up to possible along with AQ, AJ, I doubt he would check-raise AA on the flop and from how I described this player it would be very weird for him to not have at least an A.

now the good player just calls. the hand continues on with this type of thought process. each new action is new evidence

Make 3 lists good suspects, unlikely suspects, and not suspects and don't be afraid to switch them around when new evidence shows up.

One thing I hate about playing online is the time limit... the longer I put into things, the better I can analyze them. I definantly make mistakes online that I wouldn't make live.

On this actual topic, it's hard at low stakes games in a lot of cases. When 6 or 7 people limp/cold call your raise, and then call your bet on a non-coordinated K high flop... heads up against a good player I'm thinking to watch out for a set if he raises me on the turn. But in a typical 1/2 game I'm thinking someone probably has 99, someone else has 3 to a flush and bottom pair, and someone has K5 against my AK. The post where he said that poor players are the hardest to read is dead on accurate...

A few random things that help. When there's a BIG hand obvious on the board... say two Kings for example... someone bets, someone calls... a good player ONLY calls there with the K. If I'm third to act in that pot, it's the call, not the bet that scares me. People everywhere habitually slowplay trips or better. Check/raises sometimes mean big hands... but more often mean middle pair or a flush draw. People usually slowplay their big hands until the turn, while being aggressive with lesser hands earlier. I know I do, since I'd rather get the extra big bet then an extra small bet. Pokertracker aggression factors are a useful tool... someone with an AF of .2 (and a lot of hands) raises me, I believe them. If it's 2.0, then I just assume he's raising for some reason or another and proceed further.