Thought vs. Action - which doth a good or bad play make?

[de-coder]

While reading the started by eejit I had a thought about good/bad plays and why some plays are "good" and others "bad." Bdawg had a simmilar later in the thread, but I believe this topic deserves its own thread.

So, what makes a play good or bad? Is it strictly the action that's taken or is it really the motive behind the action that determines good moves from bad? Maybe it's the EV factor? Can we even properly evaluate one move vs another without having full background knowledge of why the move was made? A bad move can't be bad simply because it didn't work any more than a good move can be good simply because it did - that's completely results oriented (and it's that thinking that paves the road with the big neon sign saying "Broke - turn left here").

I don't really have all the answers and, in fact, this may be a very individual choice - what to use to determine if a move is good or bad, but I'll see if a few examples can stimulate the debate.

I've tried to make up a hand here that might be able to demonstrate the point (or I might fail miserably - this is actually harder to do than you might think). Look at the play and see what you think of the moves from each seat - all hole cards are known so we can look at each player separately. At first there is no context - just the raw facts of what actually happened.

Seat 1 is the button
Seat 1: (2003 in chips)
Seat 3: (2025 in chips)
Seat 4: (1907 in chips)
Seat 5: (1520 in chips)
Seat 6: (1045 in chips)
Seat 3: posts small blind 15
Seat 4: posts big blind 30
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Seat 1 [Kc Jc]
Dealt to Seat 3 [Ah Qh]
Dealt to Seat 4 [5d 3d]
Dealt to Seat 5 [7h 2c]
Dealt to Seat 6 [8d 9h]
Seat 5: folds
Seat 6: calls 30
Seat 1: calls 30
Seat 3: calls 15
Seat 4: checks
*** FLOP *** [Js 8h Jh]
Seat 3: checks
Seat 4: checks
Seat 6: checks
Seat 1: bets 60
Seat 3: raises 150 to 210
Seat 4: folds
Seat 6: calls 210
Seat 1: calls 150
*** TURN *** [Js 8h Jh] [Ts]
Seat 3: bets 1785 and is all-in
Seat 4: folds
Seat 6: calls 805 and is all-in
Seat 1: folds
*** RIVER *** [Js 8h Jh] [Ts] [2h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Seat 3: shows [Ah Qh] (flush, Ace high)
Seat 6: shows [8d 9h] (two pair, Jacks and Eights)

Try to think about each players moves... like any? hate any?

Lots of limpers...
what the fuck is seat 1 DOING!!!
possible flush draw, possible made str8 (with the big 97 or Q9...)
seat 6 - good call, bad call?

OK, lets add some information and see if the play seems different...
1) Seat 3 is wild aggressive and is very capable of putting all his chips in with overcards or a thin draw. Does that change the perspective on the call from seat 6?

2) Seat 1 folded trip jacks...(which worked out as he would have lost, but that isn't the point...) Is that a better fold for him if this were a tourney at a bubble spot?

I believe that the motive behind a good play makes a play good. Let's say that seat3 goes all-in because he believes that he will win this hand most of the time against any 2 cards. If he's behind right there he might win about 1/3 of the time, but he could also be drawing dead. So, if he believes he's ahead does that make the all-in bet a bad play? I think it does and that realization has got me really thinking.

In some ways does it not get harder to judge a good vs. bad move if we need to judge the thoughts behind the move?

I started this post early this afternoon, so I'll let it out now and get some more thoughts going later.

[Zybomb]

Just some general comments

[de-coder]

making up a hand that meats the criteria is harder than it looks, obviously seat4 folded twice which is something David Copperfield might pull off...

Anyway -

<elaboration>
Seat3's motive for going all-in is that he thinks he's going to win more than 50% of the time and figures that good enough to risk all his chips. That assumption is incorrect and I believe that incorrect assumption makes the all-in move a bad play.

Now, if seat3 moves all-in because he figures the following:
- seat4 will definately fold again
- he has a really good drawing hand, but he knows he's behind
- seat1 is a very passive player who has mostly been folding while the bubble works itself out
- seat6 is very loose/passive
- he expects to take the pot right here, but knows that if he does get a call he's got a good draw and he won't be knocked out

If seat3 reasons all that out and makes the move, now it's a good move - solid play and all that.
</elaboration>

Obviously this doesn't apply to all hands. Many hands play themselves (AA vs KK - everybody is all-in pre-flop and that's it...). Many hands the correct choice is quite obvious (unless you're mentally impaired...). What really has me thinking now are hands where the correct choice is not so obvious, the marginal options. And what has really caught my fancy is this idea that the thought process behind a good play might be wrong, and that makes the good play actually a bad play.

And I think this is why... If you make the right play for the wrong reason the play might work out, but the wrong reason is going to stick with you for the next time, and the time after that, and so on, and so on... If that reasoning is true then there's more to a good play than simply the right action - you have to have the right reasoning as well or the action is nothing more than a fortunate accident.