Before making a few qualifications here, I'm going to start this post with a perhaps provocative statement: When one says "no read" in a hand analysis, what that really means is, "I've failed to be sufficiently observant of what this player is doing."

There is just no such thing as no read. Even if it's the VERY first hand that someone plays at the table, you can already have a very primitive read: Bought in for maximum or bought in short. That already means something to me. I'm not going to put a lot of money at risk here on the basis of this alone, but, just as an example, I'm going to suspect that a short buy-in is much more inclined to raise something KQ-ish. Another starter: This player immediately posted UTG (or wherever) rather than waiting until his BB--or he didn't. That also says something. And these are all reads that you've got immediately. Once the second hand comes around, you should have more, after an orbit, a lot.

Before getting back to my qualifications on this complaint regarding numerous hand analyses, I'd like to mention another general read which is both very important and really not that hard to make (usually takes a few orbits, though): What types of hands does this player like to call raises with? We had a guy at the table the other night whom a friend of mine accurately labeled a "straight man." This was a great description, as the guy really liked to keep any medium cards that were close together to a reasonable raise, so you needed to watch out for straights here. Others have no problems keeping almost any suited cards. VERY many players miss the value of little pairs, thinking their 22 just isn't as good as QQ--well, of course not, PF, but the flop can change that a LOT! If you've identified a player who throws away pairs, though, you can worry less about sets. And it's perhaps the majority (at least a large number, at least among those players I see) who like KJ-ish, AQ-ish hands to raises. This is also very important info for you as raiser.

Now my qualifications, of which there are basically two: First, at least for me, I can't get reads like this multi-tabling (that's the reason why I never liked multi-tabling). There's too much going on for anyone without mental powers far exceeding my own to be on top of every player. At the same time, I recognize that multi-tabling can give you a much higher hourly rate even though it decreases your BB/100 for exactly that reason: You just can't be as detailed in your reads. Merely the fact of online vs. B&M makes reads much more difficult already, simply because the action is a lot faster and physical presence also makes for more "memorability." Nonetheless, I think anyone single-tabling should be constantly working on every player with regard to how this player is playing what kind of hand.

Second, at least from my own experience, it's hard to focus on reads if you have questions regarding your own general strategy. Everyone has his or her own basic playing style, and, until you've got one worked out that you're pretty much comfortable with, it's just difficult to focus on reads, too. Also, you need to actually HAVE a basic strategy before you can start thinking about adjusting it due to your reads. So, I have some degree of "forgiveness" here to beginners and intermediate players, although I do think that one should try as much as possible to be figuring out what strategy each opponent is playing. It's just hard at first.

So, anyhow, I'd really like to see a lot less of this "no read on villain" stuff. Online, with player fluctuation, etc., the reads are likely to be somewhat rudimentary, but ANY details of play are very important information that you really do need to bring to bear on those hands where you went into battle with a particular player.

I can't pay attention to a lot of details when i quad-table. Simple as that. I sacrifice reads in order to play more hands/hour. All I know about my opponent is what PokerOffice tells me. Hate it or love it, it's just the way it is.

Interesting post Ais. I agree with many of your points, and its the reason I do not multitable too.

I play 6-max where reads are even more important.

Ais,

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said

"I recognize that multi-tabling can give you a much higher hourly rate even though it decreases your BB/100 for exactly that reason"

That is a lot of player's philosophy. They think, as do I, that they are willing to sacrifice BB/100 so that they can get more hands in per hour to get more $'s/hour. Yes I could have a better BB/100 if I just played 1 table at a time and focused on getting reads on every opponent. But, I am positive that I make more $'s/hour multi tabling while sacrificing my BB/100 than I do playng 1 table at a time.

Don't get me wrong I still work on getting reads on my opponents, but not near as much as I would if I only played 1 table.

It's all a matter a preference. You prefer to play 1 table and study the opponents. I, along with others on this forum prefer to multi table so we can see as many hands per hour as possible. Your way certainly is more beneficial if you play a majority of your poker live. I play for the most part online, and look for the best way FOR ME to maximize profit.

Even when I quad table I can get good reads if I'm really trying. Has to do with that "A" game thing