In my three years as a poker player, I have had a theory that I thought worked for reading opponents. I have thought, "What would I do if I were them?" For example, in no-limit hold'em, if I got raised a certain amount of money, I would think to myself that I would raise that amount only with hand X. The problem with playing this way is that everyone has his own thought process. Many people may make the same plays that you make, but for reasons that may be 100 percent different than you think.
Recently I was playing in a no-limit hold'em tournament and an interesting hand came up; it was the third hand of the tournament. The blinds were $25-$50 and everyone had $2,000 in chips. I lost $500 on the first hand when I had to lay down pocket tens to an all-in raise. So, I was more short-stacked than the other players, but I had plenty of chips in relation to the blind structure. I was in the cutoff seat (one off the button), and six players had called before it got to me. I looked down to see Q-10 suited (a marginal hand), and decided to play the family pot, hoping to get lucky with my $50 investment. The player on the button raised it to $100, and everyone called.
Before the flop came down, I started thinking that the amount of his raise was weird. If he had jacks or better, he would have put in a raise of $300 or more to protect his hand. Maybe he had a drawing hand and wanted to build the pot in case he hit. That is how I assumed he would play, because that is how I would play. The flop was Q-J-J rainbow. It was checked around to me, I checked, and the initial raiser bet $500. Everyone folded to me, and I thought again. I decided that he might have a pair lower than jacks and was taking a shot at the pot. He could have a better queen, but I wasn't concerned that he had a jack or an overpair. He would have slow-played with a jack, and raised more before the flop with pocket aces or kings. I decided from my reasoning that I had the best hand unless he had me out-kicked. I told myself that I was willing to go broke if that was the case; otherwise, it was my pot. So, I called, with the intention of calling all of my chips on the turn if an ace or a king didn't come.
A blank came on the turn, I checked, and he moved in. I called instantly because I had made that decision on the flop. He flipped over pocket kings, the river was a blank, and I walked off shaking my head. How could he not protect pocket kings before the flop? Of course, I blamed him for busting me with his bad play.
After a few hours of analysis, I came to the conclusion that I didn't know how this guy plays, and I shouldn't have risked all of my chips on the assumption that he plays how I play. The fact is that he outplayed me because I committed all of my chips with a marginal hand. I got too fancy with my thought process. The moral of the story is to put your opponents in their shoes instead of putting yourself in their shoes.
Note: Paul Phillips once told me that if I ever started writing about hands, I should call it "Hand of the Weak." Thus, this is my Hand of the Weak. It's too bad I am the weak.