Pokerwiner.com → Within poker principles
MULTIPLE CHANCING IMAGES
Students of poker theory should be thoroughly familiar with the ideas about “image” that have often appeared in the poker literature. In various articles, Mike Caro has argued that a loose, wild, playful image is best, as it makes money by encouraging opponents merely to increase their most common error, calling too much. This allows you to get more value for your good hands.
In articles and essays such as the one titled “Appropriate Image” in Poker Essays, Mason Malmuth has countered that in some games, notably holdem and seven card stud, there is more to be gained from an image which enables you to steal the pot a bit more often than from an image that elicits calls. He therefore advocates a tight but aggressive image for these games. David Sklansky added to the discussion with an essay titled simply, “ Image” in Getting the Best of It, in which he describes the value of a tight, timid image has been created for you by the cards you’re been getting during a session. In the loose image/tight image debate, I come down on the tight side, at least when it comes to holdem. If you are going to nurture one image, I think tight is the way to go.
It’s difficult to gain as many extra bets on your good hands via a loose image as you can pick up by stealing an occasional pot that would otherwise not be yours. This is especially true against somewhat skilled opponents. It is true, however, that you cannot avoid your image being affected by the cards you’ve been getting and the ways in which hands have played out. Thus, you must adjust to it.
Many Opponents, Many Images
My purpose here is not to pursue this debate any further. Rather, I would simply like to add one additional element to the discussion of image: Note that the discussions of image have generally revolved around what might be termed your “general” image, or how your opponents on average are seeing your play. As Sklansky points out, this image does vary over time as a function of the cards you receive. What I would like to add is that at any given time your image may be markedly different in the perceptions of different opponents. Depending on how you have played hands against specific opponents, some may see you as tight, conservative, and rarely bluffing, while at the same time others view you as an habitual bluffer.
Some may view you as someone easy to run over, while others fear your aggression. These multiple images are subject to change frequently as a result of subsequent hands played against these opponents. Opponents with at least a little sophistication adjust to how they believe you are playing. If they subsequently believe you have changed how you are playing, they readjust. Since random variations in the cards and opponent-specific strategic considerations will cause you to play differently against different opponents, those opponents will view your play differently and make correspondingly different adjustments. This coexistence of multiple images is less likely to occur, or will be less pronounced, in poker games containing more observant opponents.
Such opponents will watch not only how you play against them, but against others as well. They will therefore perceive more accurately how you are playing in general, and in varying circumstances. Nevertheless, in most games there will be some players who do not perceive you as others do. Multiple images will also be less a factor against more sophisticated players who have some ability to see through image and perceive the reality of how you play. Multiple images are thus most likely to occur, or will be less pronounced, in games containing more observant opponents. Such opponents will watch not only how you play against them, but against others as well. They will therefore perceive more accurately how you are playing in general, and in varying circumstances.
Nevertheless, in most games there will be some players who do not perceive you as others do. Multiple images will also be less a factor against more sophisticated players who have some ability to see through images and perceive the reality of how you play. Multiple images are thus most likely to be a factor in games containing less observant, less sophisticated players. They will also occur when new players enter the game. The new players will start out with whatever baseline image they have of you, while those who have been playing against you for a while will have been affected in their views of you by hands you have played in the session so far. For example, you might generally have a conservative, non-bluffing sort of image. But, if you have been caught poker bluffing a few times during a session, the opponents who have witnessed this may see you, at least temporarily, as likely to bluff.
At the same time, players who have just joined the game, and so were not privy to your failed steal attempts, will see you as they usually do (if they know you), as a non-bluffer. You may then be able to steal relatively easily from some opponents, while simultaneously needing to concentrate only on betting for value against others. (This of course is separate from other considerations, such as opponent playing tendencies, that go into such decisions ).
The Strategic Moment in Holdem / One Way Not to Fold /
Beating the Berserko: Preflop Against a Maniac /
On Into the Storm: Playing the maniac After the Flop
One Reason to Reraise a Maniac / A Simple Read / Countering a Good Reader
Thinking About What They’re Thinking / Out On the Edge
Considerations in Two Blind Stealing Defense situations