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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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.