Fossilman Comments on Tells?

[Beerfund]

I'm only replying because you have indicated that you have put me on ignore. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Phill S]

this may be an interesting thread...

anyway, i just read an article this morning on PIE.

Im too lazy to find the real address, but its right at the top of their index.

Phill

[TheCroShow]

Tells are key for no limit. Call me a fool, but I believe tells are the sole reason that Moneymaker won the 03 Main Event.

Moneymaker confesses that he has never read a book about poker and has never watched an instructional video on poker. But his instincts were dead on for that tournament, as he applied MCU's theory of "Do the opposite of what your opponent wants you to do."

Moneymaker owned Boyd by calling Boyd's all in, with the gut instinct that Boyd was going for the steal. He knew that Boyd wanted him to fold, so he did the opposite, he called with his pocket 3's (with 3 overcards on the board already), knowing he was up against two overcards.

Look at what Moneymaker did to that dude on the final table. Cannot remember his name, so I will call him fatty (man with curly hair and stupid hat). Fatty went all in with some kinda garbage hand, no idea what he was thinking....Moneymaker stared him down and fatty was breathing heavily (sometimes an indicator of strength, but not all the time). Fatty did not want a call, but Moneymaker had a feeling his Ace was better than Fatty's hand. MM did the opposite of what his opponent wanted him to do...Fatty did not want a call, MM called him and got paid.

[Phill S]

i often go all in in SnGs with AJ and such late in the game. i dont want to be called.

if you could get some kind of read to that effect, then you may make that call with AT.

the toruble with a read is that your putting faith that your interpretation of situations is the same as the person your reading.

Thus, if i had second pair and went all-in, i want to pick it up right there and never want to be called, but if i was read like that, then calling with an underpair is perfect for the read, but bad for the fact that your still a big underdog.

all said, i do agree that reads are important in NL poker, especially tourneys, but its not as important as many believe when first playing live poker - betting patterns for one will tell you a lot more than heavy breathing can. and even if you pick up a read, its not easy to use it effectively.

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]
i often go all in in SnGs with AJ and such late in the game. i dont want to be called.

if you could get some kind of read to that effect, then you may make that call with AT.

the toruble with a read is that your putting faith that your interpretation of situations is the same as the person your reading.

Thus, if i had second pair and went all-in, i want to pick it up right there and never want to be called, but if i was read like that, then calling with an underpair is perfect for the read, but bad for the fact that your still a big underdog.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point. I remember in that pro tournement that Annie Duke won, early on when she was pretty low in chips Raymer called her all-in "because she didn't want a call". The problem was that her crappy hand was a lot better than his crappy hand, and she doubled up (or maybe knocked him out).

PS And let me second the comment that shaking hands generally indicate a very strong hand, not a bluff.

[htc1278]

I find tells to be pretty useless in the live games that I play in because my opponents are so horrible. The tells indicate what a player thinks of the strength of his hand. Against players with little experience they might be misleading because the player might think his hand is stronger than it really is. I find patterns in betting to be far more revealing...

Happy the Clown

[MonkeeMan]

[ QUOTE ]
The tells indicate what a player thinks of the strength of his hand. Against players with little experience they might be misleading because the player might think his hand is stronger than it really is. I find patterns in betting to be far more revealing...

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Wouldn't horrible players betting patterns also indicate a mistaken hand strength evaluation?

[Greg (FossilMan)]

In addition to what has been said, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing.

There are lots of terms thrown around, and not everybody means the same thing. Even I am sometimes sloppy with my use of a term.

Many people use the term "tells" to only mean a specific physical action that clues you in or tells you what the person is holding. For example, the classic shaking hands tell when somebody has a monster hand. Another would be somebody who splashes his chips in vigorously when bluffing but slides them in quietly when he's got a big hand.

Another commonly used term is "reading" somebody. I might say I put a "read" on you that you were weak. When that term is used, some people take it to mean I saw a physical tell. Other people take it to mean that there was no specific physical signal, but simply that I had a generalized sense of his hand by his body language and demeanor. Finally, some people use the term very broadly to include anytime you use the information available to put somebody on a hand or a small range of hands.

Let's not forget "betting patterns". This refers to deducing somebody's hand or a narrow range of hands by the bets, checks, and raises he has made up to this point in the hand. For example, if somebody always check-raises every time he flops a set, then if he bet the flop on this hand, you can rule out a set (at least to a large degree).

I'm not saying that any of these is more important than the other. Whichever one is most commonly displayed and reliable for a given opponent is the most important one for that opponent. While betting patterns are always there, if somebody mixes up his betting enough, then there is no pattern that you can readily use to predict his hand. For this opponent, you're going to have to rely upon reading him or his tells. If he has no tells and cannot be reliably read, then you just have to guess correctly on this hand, and find softer opponents in the future. ;-)

In any event, I think all 3 things are of critical importance if you want to be a great all-around player. And that the first two are of greater importance in NL than they are in limit, as they are displayed more often, and since betting patterns tend to be less reliable in NL.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[htc1278]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The tells indicate what a player thinks of the strength of his hand. Against players with little experience they might be misleading because the player might think his hand is stronger than it really is. I find patterns in betting to be far more revealing...

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Wouldn't horrible players betting patterns also indicate a mistaken hand strength evaluation?

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] Yes.

In the home games I play in most of the bluffs are easily identified by the betting patterns. If the betting pattern indicates that a player is betting some type of hand (MP or TP weak kicker or maybe a monster) then I have a decision to make. Because they would bet most of these hands the same way I need something else to provide information on just how strong their real hand is. This is when I would normally consider tells--to make a potentially marginal decision more clear cut. I have folded a few TP/good kickers to shaking hands only to see the player show his TP weak kicker...