Player tells and the subconscious

[Noo Yawk]

I want to get a few opinions.
I noticed that a player cuts his chips neatly in front of him when he bets. When he has a good hand he flicks one stack after he cuts his chips. However, when he's bluffing, he cuts his chips the same way but no flick. After playing with this player for a while, I've determined that this is a very reliable tell.
Anyway, I'm heads up with him on two seperate hands.
In the first one, I'm bluffing the turn. I cut my chips and mimic his betting pattern when he's strong by flicking a stack. He folds.
The next hand, a while later, I have a powerhouse, and mimic his behavior when he's bluffing, by cutting my chips with no flick. He calls me all the way down with an unimproved A-J.
Is there any evidence that a player could subconsciously be fooled by their own betting patterns? I know this is way too small of a sampling, but it seemed like an interesting test, that happened to have a good result this one time.
Thoughts? Criticism? Flame away!

[bernie]

you bet there's evidence....ive done that type of stuff...

i do it with how i bet hands at times against certain players...

people are creatures of habit, so the first thing theyll think of when they see an action, is what theyd be doing if they were doing that action. theyre not experienced/jaded enough to think that the other player is just mimicing with a different hand...

nice exploitation.... [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

i like it...

b

[Noo Yawk]

Hi Bernie.
So do you believe that players recognize their own acts consciously or subconsciously?

[bernie]

if theyre in their comfort zone, then subconc....if their a little rattled and outside their zone, then theyll watch a little more. they wont be in the groove at this time...but that could bring tells out even more in a different way...they may make other bets differently based on their emotional state...

i dont think they really put it together as far as what theyre doing. again, theyre not playing enough to become hardened to that. the thinking players will eventually catch on, but those guys are thinking with improvement in mind. the average guy just plays his same old way he's been playing for years...they tend to only understand the board cards, and basic patterns

b

[Al Schoonmaker]

Noo Yawk,

First, you're to be congratulated for picking up this tell. You would not have done so without careful observations.

Second, as you said, your sample is MUCH too small to draw any conclusions.

My statistics prof taught me a simple rule, "If N=1, V=0." If N (the sample size) is one, V (validity) is 0. You have only one in each cell. That means that your data have absolutely no validity.

Until you get at least ten times as many reactions (preferably many more), you should not regard these reactions as meaning anything. Immnse errors have been made by drawing conclusions from inadequate samples, and all scientists are taught to avoid that error.

By all means continue to test your hypothesis. You may be on to something.

It is far more fun to speculate about the meaning of a tiny sample than it is to collect more data, but you need data much more than you need explanations for this tiny sample. Sorry to rain on your parade, but any scientist or statistician would make the same point.

Regards,

Al

[Noo Yawk]

Bummer [img]/forums/images/icons/frown.gif[/img]
Thanks for responding Al. I was hoping I found the Jedi Mind Trick secret [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] , oh well [img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img] !!!!!

[Jedi Poker]

The advice Al has given you can be summed up as, "Ready. Aim. Aim. Aim. Aim. Aim. Aim. Aim. Aim. Aim. Aim. Aim. Aim. Aim. Aim. Aim. Aim......................and don't fire until you have seen this pattern a zillion times".

I give the opposite advice: Ready. Fire. Aim!

As soon as you perceive a pattern three times, I suggest you try to immediately experiment with it. Draw it out. Lure it out. Play with it. Try to find a way to amplify it. Have fun noticing the feedback.

[Jedi Poker]

Believe it or not, you just subconsciously implemented some basic elements of Ericksonian Hypnosis. First, you noticed behavioral patterns in another person that he was not aware (he was unconscious) of. Second, you you mirrored (or in your words "mimicked") those patterns. This second step created what's called "rapport" between you and your opponent. Third, you lead and he followed.

This is what all great salesmen and therapists, and persuasive and influential people of all sorts subconsciously do. Psychological players like Men Nguyen, Amarillo Slim, Puggy Pearson, and Doyle Brunson do it all the time. Good job.

[SittingBull]

"reverse tells" to include [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] the "subconscious".
Happy pokering,
Sitting Bull

[Al Schoonmaker]

Jedi,

I have no problem at all with experimenting, but make sure you realize that you are doing so. If the data conflict with your expectations, make whatever adjustments are necessary.

As for the aim, aim, aim bit, you're right. That's what ALL well trained scientists do. We all believe in taking the time to get it right. Our motto is, "When in doubt, get more data."

I wish I had the intuition or feel of the people you mention in another post, but I don't. So I work with what I have, not what I'd like to have.

Regards and thanks,

Al