You Need to Give Opponents Enough Credit: Advice from Uri Peleg

Different Exploitive Styles

To better understand when not to give your opponent too much credit, it’s essential to learn about different exploitative styles. Over his career, Uri has developed two terms to describe these approaches.

A soft exploit, or non-confrontational style, is defined by constantly exploiting opponents’ mistakes in ways they can’t easily detect — or, in Uri’s words:

“The way I do this is by exploiting you in ways that don’t convey information. So I might bluff you with 100% of my combinations that are good to bluff, whereas theory would say I only get to do it 60% of the time. And I never bluff with a combo that’s theoretically bad since if you caught me, we get into what’s called a ‘leveling war.’”

The primary aim of the soft exploit style is to avoid conflicts, stay under the radar, and capitalize on opponents’ mistakes without them realizing it.

In contrast, a hard exploit, or confrontational style, is focused on taking every opportunity to the maximum, with quick adjustments once the opponent catches on. Uri describes this approach as:

“I’m going to push as hard as I can and what are you going to do about it?”

How Much Is The Correct Amount of Credit To Give Your Opponents 

One characteristic of top poker players that Uri noticed in his poker journey is their ability to avoid giving opponents undue credit. In other words, poker pros don’t assume opponents can make plays they haven’t actually seen them execute. However, this isn’t a strict rule, as Uri explains:

“I’m sure you have heard the phrase: ‘This guy is terrible. There is no way I can lose to him unless I get unlucky’—and it turns out a lot of those terrible players actually do quite well for themselves.

There was a guy who played very high volume on PokerStars years ago, named Calvin. He would flat 3-bet with the most ridiculous hands, as far as 5-2 suited or J-3 suited. He’d often make pot-sized c-bets in 3-bet pots and sometimes showed under pairs in lines where nobody else would. Or he’d bet the flop, check the turn with an A-high flush draw—all sorts of plays that seemed silly at the time.

And despite playing in ways that seemed unorthodox, he actually did quite well. Looking back, we realized that people were 3-betting too small, and once solvers came out, it turned out his ranges were actually quite close to optimal.

When I first saw what he was doing before solvers, I examined it, thought about it, and tried it myself. I didn’t initially understand why it worked, but over time, I saw—it was actually sound.”

Uri’s example suggests that once you observe someone doing something unconventional, it’s worth giving them credit that they may have a reason. There could be something valuable you’re missing.

Remember: You Are Labeling People At Your Own Risk

As Uri explains in his video, the best players are often misjudged as terrible by less skilled regulars as they move up in stakes:

“I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard people claiming someone is terrible, only to later see that same player competing at nosebleed stakes while they were stuck in the same place they started.

To succeed in poker, you have to think outside the box, be creative, take risks, and even make plays that seem terrible.

A professional who can occasionally play terribly is, believe it or not, much more intimidating than someone who always plays by the book. And even if your opponent’s thought process isn’t great, it’s still worth recognizing and understanding it so that if you encounter a similar player in the future, you can better predict their actions.”

Before labeling someone as “terrible” or “terrific,” take a moment to analyze their play and ask yourself, “What can I learn from this player?”