Thursday, July 16, 2009
Bar Exam Questions
So, I've been spending a lot of my time in recent days studying for the bar exam which I am taking starting on Tuesday, July 28 to Thursday, July 30, and I've been getting somewhat frustrated at some of the questions.
The bar examiners like to try to trick us by shaping questions in such a way that it looks like a certain rule (that we were forced to memorize for this stupid test) is being tested, when in fact there is a minor detail somewhere else in the question that nullifies the rule and leads you to another answer. The questions are shaped just like an old riddle that my sister used to ask people whose entire purpose was to trick the person being asked the question. Here's the question: If a rooster lays an egg on the top of a house, which side does the egg fall? Of course, the answer is that roosters don't lay eggs, so the question is null. This is exactly what the bar examiners do except they really lead you down the wrong path. If that riddle was a question on the bar exam it would read more like this: "A farmer got into a dispute with his neighbor who lived on the east side of a duplex shared with the farmer about who owned a prized rooster. The farmer was somewhat eccentric and told his neighbor that they would decide who owned the rooster by placing him on the roof of the building, and whoever's side the egg fell would keep the rooster. After much cajooling, the neighbor agreed. The roof is triangularly shaped such that the roof slopes both toward the East and the West. The wind that day was especially strong and was blowing to the East. Furthermore, the farmer's part of the roof was waxed with a reflective oil to keep the house cooler, but the neighbor's half was not. Who will win the rooster?"
Now also suppose that admidst your hours of studying you had memorized the general rule that spherical objects always roll in the direction of the wind. However, there is a small caveat that if there is part of a roof that slopes to the West and that part is covered with oil, then the spherical object will roll in that direction. Now, you see the answer that says to the East because of the wind and you think to yourself, "wow! I'm glad I memorized that little caveat about the oil!", and you mark down West as your answer. Wrong! It's D, not enough information. Now, what's the point of that? It's just as likely, if not more likely, that someone who didn't study at all would put D because he didn't know there were any rules about egg rolling. In other words, the examiner's are attempting to penalize you for knowing the rules! Assholes!
The problem is that the bar examiners have to think of questions such that people can study for 6 weeks for a knowledge-based test (as opposed to an IQ type test like the SATs or LSATs) that somewhat smart people are taking and yet keep the average around 60%. The only way to do this is to trick them. So, then the question is why does the average have to be 60%? They're gonna pass 80% of the kids that take it, presumably passing people who are getting 40% right on a multiple choice test where choosing randomly should get you around 25%. Does this make sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a test where people that study hard and know the rules can get 80-90%? I think so. I think it would be better to make sure that the ones who pass know the basics really well, not 50% of the trick questions.
The bar examiners like to try to trick us by shaping questions in such a way that it looks like a certain rule (that we were forced to memorize for this stupid test) is being tested, when in fact there is a minor detail somewhere else in the question that nullifies the rule and leads you to another answer. The questions are shaped just like an old riddle that my sister used to ask people whose entire purpose was to trick the person being asked the question. Here's the question: If a rooster lays an egg on the top of a house, which side does the egg fall? Of course, the answer is that roosters don't lay eggs, so the question is null. This is exactly what the bar examiners do except they really lead you down the wrong path. If that riddle was a question on the bar exam it would read more like this: "A farmer got into a dispute with his neighbor who lived on the east side of a duplex shared with the farmer about who owned a prized rooster. The farmer was somewhat eccentric and told his neighbor that they would decide who owned the rooster by placing him on the roof of the building, and whoever's side the egg fell would keep the rooster. After much cajooling, the neighbor agreed. The roof is triangularly shaped such that the roof slopes both toward the East and the West. The wind that day was especially strong and was blowing to the East. Furthermore, the farmer's part of the roof was waxed with a reflective oil to keep the house cooler, but the neighbor's half was not. Who will win the rooster?"
Now also suppose that admidst your hours of studying you had memorized the general rule that spherical objects always roll in the direction of the wind. However, there is a small caveat that if there is part of a roof that slopes to the West and that part is covered with oil, then the spherical object will roll in that direction. Now, you see the answer that says to the East because of the wind and you think to yourself, "wow! I'm glad I memorized that little caveat about the oil!", and you mark down West as your answer. Wrong! It's D, not enough information. Now, what's the point of that? It's just as likely, if not more likely, that someone who didn't study at all would put D because he didn't know there were any rules about egg rolling. In other words, the examiner's are attempting to penalize you for knowing the rules! Assholes!
The problem is that the bar examiners have to think of questions such that people can study for 6 weeks for a knowledge-based test (as opposed to an IQ type test like the SATs or LSATs) that somewhat smart people are taking and yet keep the average around 60%. The only way to do this is to trick them. So, then the question is why does the average have to be 60%? They're gonna pass 80% of the kids that take it, presumably passing people who are getting 40% right on a multiple choice test where choosing randomly should get you around 25%. Does this make sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a test where people that study hard and know the rules can get 80-90%? I think so. I think it would be better to make sure that the ones who pass know the basics really well, not 50% of the trick questions.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
How to act
Have you ever watched a movie or a tv show and thought to yourself "wow, that person is just like me, maybe that's how I should act" or "everybody in these shows deals with relationships and other things in life in similar ways to each other, maybe that's how I'm supposed to act." Well, maybe you haven't, but I have. In the search for figuring who I am and who I want to be, I would always look to cues about who I was or how I should act. TV and movies are just one example, I would also just watch other people who I interacted with to get ideas from them as well.
Well, I've decided that I have had enough of it, and that I am no longer going to take cues from outside of myself. I am going to start acting and making decisions based completely on what I feel like is the appropriate thing to do. I am 25 years old, I have had plenty of time to learn from others and develop ideas about what my options are, what makes me happy, and what kind of person I would like to be. It's about time I started to make these decisions for myself.
Well, I've decided that I have had enough of it, and that I am no longer going to take cues from outside of myself. I am going to start acting and making decisions based completely on what I feel like is the appropriate thing to do. I am 25 years old, I have had plenty of time to learn from others and develop ideas about what my options are, what makes me happy, and what kind of person I would like to be. It's about time I started to make these decisions for myself.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Mike Brown Sucks
Seriously, the Cavs' coach sucks. I'm pissed right now because the Cavs were just eliminated from the playoffs by the Magic in pretty much a blowout victory. And, the only thing I kept thinking throughout the entire game was how much this game looked exactly like the others. How Cleveland still had no idea how to guard Dwight Howard, and no idea how to defend the threes when they kicked it out. Admittedly, Orlando did a fantastic job of running this offense. All their players other than Howard could shoot threes, and all of them spread out accordingly, passed around the perimeter when they weren't open, drove when a Cavs player came flying at them, etc. But, what's really disappointing is how Mike Brown just let them play this type of game without even trying any new defensive tactics to stop it. The Cavs just played the same way they always did.
Here's some ideas they should have tried:
1. Double team the guy with the ball so they can't make an entry pass.
2. Front Dwight Howard.
3. Double Dwight Howard at all times and let them take the threes with guys running at them.
Not even trying the third one in this list is what makes the least sense to me. The Magic are good at two things- making threes and posting up Dwight Howard. It's basketball theory 101 that if you can't effectively stop both things a team is good at, you should focus on one and make the team beat you using the other. This puts the pressure of the game on just one tactic. The Cavs once in awhile switched to a defense that doubled Howard, but only doing it once in awhile defeats the whole purpose. This theory works because it's both physically and mentally draining to have to carry the game the whole time. To show my point, imagine a scenario where the Cavs are doubling Howard, such that the three point shooters of Orlando just made five or six threes in a quarter. Now, if the Cavs continue to double team Howard, the three point shooters will realize that they're gonna have to keep making these threes if they want to win the game. This will get harder and harder as the game goes on. If, however, the Cavs react to the situation (like Mike Brown had them doing) and single cover Howard, the three point shooters can now relax for a little while, releiving them of the pressure of having to make threes, while they feed the ball to Howard. My point is, in all this, that Brown never had a single game where he doubled Howard the whole game or a significant, continuous portion of a game, and not at least trying this is very disappointing.
However, Mike Brown's biggest disappointment in my eyes is that he didn't try to foul out Dwight Howard. There were so many plays in the last game (and a couple in this game) where Lebron drove past his initial defender then went straight into Dwight Howard's body, drew the foul, and often made the shot. He should have done this early and often in this game. They should have tried to get Howard in foul trouble right away.
They also should have attempted to draw offensive fouls on Howard. Anderson Varejao has made a name for himself by flopping and getting fouls. Why the hell wasn't he doing this when he was guarding Dwight Howard? Howard would back straight into his chest, and not lightly either, over and over again, and Varejao would just try to stand his ground. This doesn't make sense to me. Howard scored over Varejao just about everytime anyway. Why not take a chance with the flop? Even if it works just 25% of the time (and I can't imagine it working less than that), you're giving up 6 points for every foul. And, as I see it, by playing regular, tough defense, Howard is still going to make three of four on Varejao anyway, giving him six points and no fouls. I see it as a win for the Cavs without losing anything.
I also see the flopping as a good way to take Howard out of his game. You have to make the game ticky tacky such that Howard is constantly worried about how much contact he's starting. Making things physical by playing tough, straight up D only gives him a better feel for the game.
I just don't understand why a team that was outplayed in almost every game in a series can still fail to make a single, legitimate adjustment. And, this is against a team that makes their gameplan so painfully obvious. What the hell, Mike Brown?
Here's some ideas they should have tried:
1. Double team the guy with the ball so they can't make an entry pass.
2. Front Dwight Howard.
3. Double Dwight Howard at all times and let them take the threes with guys running at them.
Not even trying the third one in this list is what makes the least sense to me. The Magic are good at two things- making threes and posting up Dwight Howard. It's basketball theory 101 that if you can't effectively stop both things a team is good at, you should focus on one and make the team beat you using the other. This puts the pressure of the game on just one tactic. The Cavs once in awhile switched to a defense that doubled Howard, but only doing it once in awhile defeats the whole purpose. This theory works because it's both physically and mentally draining to have to carry the game the whole time. To show my point, imagine a scenario where the Cavs are doubling Howard, such that the three point shooters of Orlando just made five or six threes in a quarter. Now, if the Cavs continue to double team Howard, the three point shooters will realize that they're gonna have to keep making these threes if they want to win the game. This will get harder and harder as the game goes on. If, however, the Cavs react to the situation (like Mike Brown had them doing) and single cover Howard, the three point shooters can now relax for a little while, releiving them of the pressure of having to make threes, while they feed the ball to Howard. My point is, in all this, that Brown never had a single game where he doubled Howard the whole game or a significant, continuous portion of a game, and not at least trying this is very disappointing.
However, Mike Brown's biggest disappointment in my eyes is that he didn't try to foul out Dwight Howard. There were so many plays in the last game (and a couple in this game) where Lebron drove past his initial defender then went straight into Dwight Howard's body, drew the foul, and often made the shot. He should have done this early and often in this game. They should have tried to get Howard in foul trouble right away.
They also should have attempted to draw offensive fouls on Howard. Anderson Varejao has made a name for himself by flopping and getting fouls. Why the hell wasn't he doing this when he was guarding Dwight Howard? Howard would back straight into his chest, and not lightly either, over and over again, and Varejao would just try to stand his ground. This doesn't make sense to me. Howard scored over Varejao just about everytime anyway. Why not take a chance with the flop? Even if it works just 25% of the time (and I can't imagine it working less than that), you're giving up 6 points for every foul. And, as I see it, by playing regular, tough defense, Howard is still going to make three of four on Varejao anyway, giving him six points and no fouls. I see it as a win for the Cavs without losing anything.
I also see the flopping as a good way to take Howard out of his game. You have to make the game ticky tacky such that Howard is constantly worried about how much contact he's starting. Making things physical by playing tough, straight up D only gives him a better feel for the game.
I just don't understand why a team that was outplayed in almost every game in a series can still fail to make a single, legitimate adjustment. And, this is against a team that makes their gameplan so painfully obvious. What the hell, Mike Brown?
My Favorite Music Videos
I think music videos are some of the most awesome things ever created. In fact, a lot of times when I'm listening to music, I imagine a sweet music video to go with it. If I knew anything about making/editing movies, I think the first kind of movie (and probably the only kind of movie) I would make would be a music video. Here's a list of my current favorites, in order of the ones I like the most:
1. Eels, Last Stop This Town (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8hyCWH1Ww0)
2. The Avalanches, Frontier Psychiatrist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8BWBn26bX0)
3. Daft Punk, Around the World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0HSD_i2DvA)
4. Wolf Parade, I'll Believe in Anything (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZgwW-RzD30)
5. Hot Chip, Over and Over (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHB9F8tvGVM)
6. The Knife, We Share Our Mother's Health (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=617ANIA5Rqs)
7. Wolf Parade, Modern World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nMHGyR_i8g)
8. Electric Six, Danger! High Voltage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a4gyJsY0mc)
9. We Are Scientists, The Great Escape (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAxp4I6Nre4)
10. Hot Chip, Ready for the Floor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cxry9cLFQI)
11. Hercules and Love Affair, Blind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpX4fJsiS1U)
12. Modest Mouse, Dashboard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erc40wCxRZo)
This list is subject to updating...
1. Eels, Last Stop This Town (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8hyCWH1Ww0)
2. The Avalanches, Frontier Psychiatrist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8BWBn26bX0)
3. Daft Punk, Around the World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0HSD_i2DvA)
4. Wolf Parade, I'll Believe in Anything (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZgwW-RzD30)
5. Hot Chip, Over and Over (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHB9F8tvGVM)
6. The Knife, We Share Our Mother's Health (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=617ANIA5Rqs)
7. Wolf Parade, Modern World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nMHGyR_i8g)
8. Electric Six, Danger! High Voltage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a4gyJsY0mc)
9. We Are Scientists, The Great Escape (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAxp4I6Nre4)
10. Hot Chip, Ready for the Floor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cxry9cLFQI)
11. Hercules and Love Affair, Blind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpX4fJsiS1U)
12. Modest Mouse, Dashboard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erc40wCxRZo)
This list is subject to updating...
Thursday, May 28, 2009
How to make money in the NBA
Other than how good a player is, the main correlation with how much a player is making in the NBA is how old the player is and how long he's been in the NBA. It's why Eric Snow, a player not even good enough to get his feet on the court anymore, is making $7 million, and Kevin Durant, the best player on the Lightning, is only making $4.5 million. It's why Brian Scalabrine is making $3.2 million and Glen Davis is making $700,000. It's flabbergasting to look at what kind of money these old, crappy players are making.
One could argue that the owners don't know how good these rookies are gonna be in the future, so they have to hedge their risk by giving smaller contracts. But even with this argument, I don't think anybody would have wagered that Eric Snow would be better than Kevin Durant this year. What ends up happening is you have one player playing 35 minutes a game making less than a guy who never gets off the bench. It's why you have Ben Wallace making more than Lebron James.
The reason it's like this is because of the collective bargaining agreement between the players and the owners. It makes sense that the old players in the NBA are the ones that are best represented in negotiations (they have developed the contacts and they are looked up to by the younger players), and the owners agree to their demands in order to keep the salaries low in any way possible.
What sucks about the arrangement is what if Durant gets injured next year? He never got paid nearly what he should have made during these early years, and never got the huge contract he would have gotten later. If I had one piece of advice for a young player starting out in the NBA, it would be this- stay healthy at all costs. Think about it, if Brian Scalabrine went down with a career ending injury in his 4th year, he would have made $2.5 million for his whole career. Over his last 4 years, he's made $11.6 million. He has made 82% of his money in the last 50% of his career. And, he's averaged less minutes during this time!
This whole scheme just doesn't make sense to me. You should be paid for how good you are, how much you mean to your team, plain and simple.
One could argue that the owners don't know how good these rookies are gonna be in the future, so they have to hedge their risk by giving smaller contracts. But even with this argument, I don't think anybody would have wagered that Eric Snow would be better than Kevin Durant this year. What ends up happening is you have one player playing 35 minutes a game making less than a guy who never gets off the bench. It's why you have Ben Wallace making more than Lebron James.
The reason it's like this is because of the collective bargaining agreement between the players and the owners. It makes sense that the old players in the NBA are the ones that are best represented in negotiations (they have developed the contacts and they are looked up to by the younger players), and the owners agree to their demands in order to keep the salaries low in any way possible.
What sucks about the arrangement is what if Durant gets injured next year? He never got paid nearly what he should have made during these early years, and never got the huge contract he would have gotten later. If I had one piece of advice for a young player starting out in the NBA, it would be this- stay healthy at all costs. Think about it, if Brian Scalabrine went down with a career ending injury in his 4th year, he would have made $2.5 million for his whole career. Over his last 4 years, he's made $11.6 million. He has made 82% of his money in the last 50% of his career. And, he's averaged less minutes during this time!
This whole scheme just doesn't make sense to me. You should be paid for how good you are, how much you mean to your team, plain and simple.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Racism- Hockey v. Basketball
In my opinion, the main throng of racism today can best be illustrated by the following scenario: a white guy walking down an empty street sees a couple of black guys coming up the street, the white guy is much more scared of being mugged or, as is more likely, of being harassed. Now, take the same scenario, but substitute a couple of white guys for the black guys, and the hero no longer feels threatened. This is the problem- the image given to black people by white people. Without any pretense, black people are stereotyped as thugs. This is the type of racism pervading America today, and is what we need to focus on combating.
To further show this racism, I have an example I would like to discuss. It's an example that I have yet to see anybody else mention. The example is about the differences between the rules in hockey and basketball as well as the differences in how the two sports are viewed. Hockey is a sport that is predominantly white and basketball is a sport that is predominantly black, and it seems to me that there are differences in the rules based on this fact.
The main rule I am talking about is the fact that players are allowed to fight in the NHL whereas any tiny little scrum in the NBA usually ends in technical fouls, suspensions, and/or fines. Why is this? Well, there's a simple reason why NHL players are allowed to fight: the fans love it, and anything the fans love goes. Now, why is fighting not allowed in the NBA? One possible explanation is that there's no padding in the NBA like there is in the NHL, so fights in the NBA are much more likely to cause serious injury. Well, this explanation forgets that NHL players are mainly pounding each other in the face during these riffs and the padding makes no difference (there could be an argument that the bulkiness of the padding makes it difficult land a serious blow). Also, the explanation fails to explain why any tiny little shove, no matter how insignificant, is at least hit with a technical foul in an NBA game. Hell, even yelling something at another player can get you a technical. Could you imagine a hockey penalty being given because of something one player said to another? It seems ridiculous. Unsportsmanlike conduct penalties are saved for circumstances where one player completely blindsides another player.
I think the proper explanation is that we, Americans, are racist (not that we're more racist than any other country- in fact, we're probably less racist). What would happen if we saw Kenyon Martin fighting it out with Lamar Odom in the middle of a game? We would see a couple of thugs in a street brawl. This would cause us to lose respect for the game. Fans would think to themselves- "aw that's what was always going to happen when you put a bunch of thuggish black guys on a court together". The players would be looked down upon, almost like animals. The persona of the game would change into spectator gang warfare instead of a lovely game of skill and finesse. Fighting hockey players, on the other hand, are looked highly upon as tough guys or even warriors.
This is further shown by the NBA rule that states when NBA players can't play in a game because of injury or some other reason, they have to wear suits on the sidelines. When NBA executives are asked why they have this rule, the answer is generally to keep the character of the league up with respect to how the players are seen by the fans. In other words, the NBA doesn't want its players to look like pimped out thugs on the sidelines with their jumpsuits and crazy huge gold jewelry because this would cause the fans to see the players as thugs. It makes sense, I could definitely see fans thinking this way.
The question I'm trying to raise by this post is why do we see these basketball players as thugs but not the white hockey players? The only logical answer is because they are black. These rules are promulgated in the NBA for a reason- to save the character of the league in the eyes of the fans. It is our own fault for seeing black players in jumpsuits with bling as thugs, not the NBA, and not society. There's no reason for it. This is where racism is hiding and we need to end it here as well.
To further show this racism, I have an example I would like to discuss. It's an example that I have yet to see anybody else mention. The example is about the differences between the rules in hockey and basketball as well as the differences in how the two sports are viewed. Hockey is a sport that is predominantly white and basketball is a sport that is predominantly black, and it seems to me that there are differences in the rules based on this fact.
The main rule I am talking about is the fact that players are allowed to fight in the NHL whereas any tiny little scrum in the NBA usually ends in technical fouls, suspensions, and/or fines. Why is this? Well, there's a simple reason why NHL players are allowed to fight: the fans love it, and anything the fans love goes. Now, why is fighting not allowed in the NBA? One possible explanation is that there's no padding in the NBA like there is in the NHL, so fights in the NBA are much more likely to cause serious injury. Well, this explanation forgets that NHL players are mainly pounding each other in the face during these riffs and the padding makes no difference (there could be an argument that the bulkiness of the padding makes it difficult land a serious blow). Also, the explanation fails to explain why any tiny little shove, no matter how insignificant, is at least hit with a technical foul in an NBA game. Hell, even yelling something at another player can get you a technical. Could you imagine a hockey penalty being given because of something one player said to another? It seems ridiculous. Unsportsmanlike conduct penalties are saved for circumstances where one player completely blindsides another player.
I think the proper explanation is that we, Americans, are racist (not that we're more racist than any other country- in fact, we're probably less racist). What would happen if we saw Kenyon Martin fighting it out with Lamar Odom in the middle of a game? We would see a couple of thugs in a street brawl. This would cause us to lose respect for the game. Fans would think to themselves- "aw that's what was always going to happen when you put a bunch of thuggish black guys on a court together". The players would be looked down upon, almost like animals. The persona of the game would change into spectator gang warfare instead of a lovely game of skill and finesse. Fighting hockey players, on the other hand, are looked highly upon as tough guys or even warriors.
This is further shown by the NBA rule that states when NBA players can't play in a game because of injury or some other reason, they have to wear suits on the sidelines. When NBA executives are asked why they have this rule, the answer is generally to keep the character of the league up with respect to how the players are seen by the fans. In other words, the NBA doesn't want its players to look like pimped out thugs on the sidelines with their jumpsuits and crazy huge gold jewelry because this would cause the fans to see the players as thugs. It makes sense, I could definitely see fans thinking this way.
The question I'm trying to raise by this post is why do we see these basketball players as thugs but not the white hockey players? The only logical answer is because they are black. These rules are promulgated in the NBA for a reason- to save the character of the league in the eyes of the fans. It is our own fault for seeing black players in jumpsuits with bling as thugs, not the NBA, and not society. There's no reason for it. This is where racism is hiding and we need to end it here as well.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The new edition
So, recently I have been reading some other blogs, namely a blog by my old civil procedure professor Michael Dorf (michaeldorf.org) and one by my friend Jon (thegourmetpiggy.blogspot.com) as well as others, and they have inspired me to start trying to write a normal blog about law, politics, daily life musings, etc. Actually, now that I think about it, the daily life musings seems like it may take over the largest portion of my blog. We'll see how this goes.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Watching other people
I know you're reading this website and other websites and thinking to yourself: "yes, well that situation is black and white, a lot of times when I'm playing somebody it isn't that easy". Well, thats why there is no computer that plays poker. Thats why poker is still a game of skill not a game like blackjack or something where there is a way to play it everytime. Sometimes you have to make your own judgement call. And making these judgement calls really depends on what kind of player you're going up against. Now, when you're playing online, if you're like me, its not possible to watch every play and mark down what everybody is doing. Not only is that time consuming, but its not fun, and it defeats the purpose of playing the game in my opinion.
Therefore, what I like to do to figure out my opponents is to think about how I can win a big pot off them. I imagine in my head a situation where I have a certain two cards, and I can see how the betting goes, and how I can win a big pot. I'm not talking about imagining myself with AA and the other guy with KK and raising him all in. Nothing that specific, and not anything that obvious. This strategy might seem confusing to you. I'll try to give some examples.
For instance, lets pretend you see a player who is raising on almost every hand, and then if somebody raises him, he usually calls. Now, in order to play this guy I would picture in my head folding more often preflop and waiting for good cards before I call the blinds. Then, let him raise it, then you can raise it back over top of him pretty much sure that you have the better hand.
*** important note: try to determine who the loose players are and who the tight players are. Just watch who plays more hands preflop, who bets more, who calls all the time, etc. Then, focus your attention on the loosest players first because these are the players chances are you're going to be in more pots with (and the people who you'll win more chips off of). Just stay away from the tight players at the beginning (unless, of course, you have something really great). Its fine to bet small amounts at them to bluff them out as they are tight, but avoid big pots with them early on. ***
I'll talk more about this topic later on.
Therefore, what I like to do to figure out my opponents is to think about how I can win a big pot off them. I imagine in my head a situation where I have a certain two cards, and I can see how the betting goes, and how I can win a big pot. I'm not talking about imagining myself with AA and the other guy with KK and raising him all in. Nothing that specific, and not anything that obvious. This strategy might seem confusing to you. I'll try to give some examples.
For instance, lets pretend you see a player who is raising on almost every hand, and then if somebody raises him, he usually calls. Now, in order to play this guy I would picture in my head folding more often preflop and waiting for good cards before I call the blinds. Then, let him raise it, then you can raise it back over top of him pretty much sure that you have the better hand.
*** important note: try to determine who the loose players are and who the tight players are. Just watch who plays more hands preflop, who bets more, who calls all the time, etc. Then, focus your attention on the loosest players first because these are the players chances are you're going to be in more pots with (and the people who you'll win more chips off of). Just stay away from the tight players at the beginning (unless, of course, you have something really great). Its fine to bet small amounts at them to bluff them out as they are tight, but avoid big pots with them early on. ***
I'll talk more about this topic later on.
