MILLER vs. CARO

[adamstewart]

Okay, so I've just about finished SSH and come across Ed Miller's (and/or Skansky's and/or Malmuth's) section on "Using Tells."

Miller says to "attack weakness," and as an example he says to BET! against a player who "hesitates several seconds, and calls, tossing his chips in a manner that says, 'What the heck.'" (page 245, SSH)

I feel very strongly that this is totally incorrect, and I could not believe that I was actually reading such advice in SSH. As an authority on poker tells, Mike Caro indicates that, generally, "weak means strong" (and vice versa). So, when a player 'hesitates' and says, 'What the heck,' this usually means he has a good hand. So, play with caution.

Anyone agree???

[Blarg]

Against a straightforward player or one just being himself, Miller is correct. Against a tricky player or one of those poor saps who thinks he's "clever," Caro is very often right.

[bernie]

I don't agree with you and here's why.

1st rule of tells, by caro, determine if the player is 'acting' or not. Caro's book is not written in stone. Even he mentions that. It's about what to look for and their possible meanings.

Many on LL are not sophisticated enough to pull off an act without it being very obvious. They're usually just not that hardened to the game as to be able to control their emotions from showing as they play. As subtle as it may be. As Ed also mentions in his book, they aren't their playing an intense game trying to gain every edge. They're just there to have fun. Look at the psychology behind their actions when you determine that they aren't 'acting'. What will it tell you? They're weak. (usually)

Another thing about tells. Depending on the player, they can mean completely different things. One 'action' doesn't mean the same thing when it comes from different players. Confirm it. In Ed's case, we can usually have the player profiled based on similar players we've played against before. Sometimes you can profile a player without even seeing him play a hand. That's a whole different post, but does have relevance.

Checking when they have chips in their hand is also a nice time to bet. Many times they don't want you to bet. I thought Ed's tell section was pretty good for what it was. It should give you some ideas as to what to look for. It's up to you to tell if the tell is legit or not.

b

[Joe Tall]

Can you define 'value bet'?

Welcome to the forum,
Joe Tall

[whiskeytown]

I haven't read Miller's book yet, though I've read a bit of Mike C's -

but I can tell you from personal experience, whenever I get a "what the heck" call - it's either the nuts or a draw to a monster - I always wanna be careful about raising after that -

RB

[adamstewart]

Very good point about "acting vs. genuine," Bernie. I neglected to address that is my post. And, if the person in question appeared to be genuine in his/her actions, I totally agree with you, as I'm sure would Caro.

I suppose that I inexplicitly made the assumption that this person was "acting." I base this assumption on the fact that even the weakest and most inexperienced players "act" (and often "overact"), in a great deal of their actions at the table. They, almost intuitively, try to appear weak when when they hold strong hands, feeling that they effectively conceal the strength of their hands. It's part of the fun in playing poker, for them.

Now, I also understand what you mean when you say that in the low stakes games that SSH addresses "these players are just there to have fun, and aren't playing 'edges'." Very true, and should be taken into consideration - especially, when initially deciding whether or not the player is acting or genuine. And I further understand that tells are IN NO WAY carved in stone, and very often mean totally different things for different players. But, yes, such discussion is beyond the scope of this thread.

In any case, I'm sure we're thinking along similar lines, and just arguing different points /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Thanks for the discussion!
Adam

[adamstewart]

That's exactly what I was refering to in my initial post.

Thank you.

[bernie]

Another good source to learn about tell play is Dr. Als psychology of poker.

This can tell you why some types play the way they do. The thinking behind their plays.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose that I inexplicitly made the assumption that this person was "acting." I base this assumption on the fact that even the weakest and most inexperienced players "act"

[/ QUOTE ]

Many players who play seriously tend to forget that other players play for different reasons. (general statement) Many new players (not you, unless it applies) think poker is about making moves and bluffing and all that. So they'll see what they want to see, essentially juking themselves.

Sometimes, I use the opponents bet action against them by putting bets in the way they would depending on what hand i want them to think i have. Because that's how they would bet if they had the hand im trying to represent. (bet speed is a huge tipoff in LL live games. The emotion of their hand goes right down their arm and to the chips going on the table)

Also remember, the 'actors' will stick out more than the genuine guys. Because most in LL are genuine in their actions. Same reason the 'better' players are easier to spot on these tables.

Nice thread...

b

[stir]

This post is spot on. Some of it reflects things I have noted playing live LL also. Particularly noted the comment that "the 'actors' will stick out more than the genuine guys".

[spamuell]

I really don't think Miller's point was about specific tells. He was just giving an example of a possible tell and making a more general point that one should not make what could be a disastrous (i.e. pot-losing) error such as calling instead of raising or folding instead of calling purely because of a physical action which could be ambiguous or irrelevant.

I think you are placing far too much emphasis on a small detail rather than understanding a more important point.

[adamstewart]

Thank you very much for your thorough discussion and advice. Very constructive.

Adam
PS. What do you mean poker isn't all about bluffs and making moves !?!? /images/graemlins/smile.gif (j/k)

[adamstewart]

I realize that Miller's book isn't about specific tells. He even mentions that material on the topic is available elsewhere.

I'm sure he only mentions it for the sake of completeness. However, in doing so, I was suggesting that he was drawing an (arguably) incorrect conclusion from the tell in question.

I did not, however, miss the broad and useful point he was making.

[dogmeat]

You know, Mike Caro is a fine player, and did a lot for poker in the early 1980's. However, much like the advice found in Super System (which is also excellent, or was), his advice is outdated. The game has changed significantly since 20-years ago. Players are smarter, better, and things have definitly changed. No disrespect intended to Caro, Brunson, or anybody else that wrote books before 1995 or so, but you need to go with the current best books and advice - and that is Ed Millers book, for sure. Even Bob Ciaffone provides better advice for middle-limit games than the old masters (actually, Bob's book is much like Ed's, and although Ed's is terrific, his is top of the heap by standing on some very broad shoulders).

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Nottom]

For anyone who doubts any of this, just watch celebrity poker on Bravo sometime (I know it can be painful).

They will often act a bit when betting, but you can almost always tell when they don't really want to call.

[adamstewart]

Point taken.

[bernie]

Yeah, it was a fun thread.

To really get into tell play, it's good to study the psychology behind the tell. Most players share the same make-up in this regard so it is transferable/applicable to many players you will face based on their profile.

I will say as much fun as exploring this aspect of the game is, make sure your main game is pretty strong before really delving into it. It is fascinating the reasons why some people play the way they do. Which is one reason when in a conversation with a 'donator' i will turn his question to me around to him to find out how/why he plays the way he does. Then i of course, agree completely with him. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Many casual players will also literally tell you how they play and the reasoning behind it. Like they're sharing knowledge or something. Listen to some of the post hand discussions at the table. They can get not only comical, but very informative. Keep your ears open at the table.

1 guy on a different table i overheard asking people not to discuss hands after the hand is over. He was pretty adamant about it. All's i could think of was, why pass up the free info? (They weren't table coaching or berating, just discussing. It also wasn't that they were doing it every hand.) I had to take a double take at the table as he said it again. It was one of the stupidest requests i'd heard. Some players like to swim upstream.

Have fun

b

[adamstewart]

"Some players like to swim upstream." ... lol

Hey, thanks for a lot of useful information.

[Mikey]

One must have enough experience to know the difference between the genuine act and the reverse act.

[bernie]

Notice you won't really get this experience online.

b

[Trainwreck]

I think you have to remember we are talking against typical LOW LIMIT players... NOT ACTUAL THINKING players, which to me makes Ed's advice correct, at least in my mind until proven otherwise.

>Trainwreck<

[bernie]

Thinking players that are new to a higher limit can have this type of 'tell'. If they aren't used to the monetary part of the game at that limit, which is common. You can use their new 'fear' of the money against them.

b

[Blarg]

I don't think you necessarily need much experience to tell a fake.

The number one danger a magician will get caught in his trick comes from a little kid in the audience. It's hard to misdirect them, and they have an eye and an instinct for what matters.

We all have bullshit detectors. Poker players by and large aren't any better at covering up an air of fakeness than anyone else.

Note that bullshit detectors don't have to identify, evaluate, and classify in detail to work in poker. Just sensing a slight stink around the edges is good enough.

[Ed Miller]

Hi Adam,

As you realize, the point of the section is NOT "what does hesitating mean?" The point is, "given that you have a tell you interpret as weakness, what should you do?"

As for whether "weak means strong," in my experience the answer is "sometimes." Generally, clueless players tend to exhibit "weak means weak." They hesitate more often because they have no idea what to do, not because they are trying to be tricky.

On the other hand, if you see the local angle-shooter start hemming and hawing on a flop call, be more inclined to interpret it as "weak means strong."

As a specific example (and I had this scenario in mind when I wrote the tells section), if you are playing the $2-$4 game at the Palms, and a tourist-type hesitates and then tosses his money in, he is very likely to have a weak hand.

Does that address your concern?

[adamstewart]

Wow... I actually got a reply from Ed Miller, himself! Thank you.

Yes, your point is very clear now, and that makes a great deal of sense.

By the way, your book has done wonders for my game in terms of increasing my aggression, counting "partial outs" and dragging in huge pots.

Thanks again.
Adam.