Tells

[winky51]

I've been getting a lot of flak because I feel I read players well. I combine betting patterns, tells, conversation, reactions, and pot odds to determine the right play. I have had several players on 2+2 "pashaw" that tells are as effective as I claim them to be.

I feel that some players are great at reading math patterns like betting, doing odds analysis based on previous play, and calculating percentages X player will fold compared to how he played his last 20 hands if I bet Y amount.

But then I know there are players that have this amazing instinct for people. They see patterns in a player's emotional state, know when to play hands in a certain way due to other players frustration, overconfidence, or style. They pick up little instinctive habits of other players and use them against them. They can tell when someone is lying or get them to give a tell that they are. The smell traps and lay them well.

Now mind you I have not played pros so I don't know how they would be, I assume in much more control and the value of tells go way down. But when dealing with mostly with weak players live and I feel they go up in value. Usually I can tell if X player has a weak hand, strong hand, are going to fold, are playing a monster. I can get information out of them, get them to show a hand after a play with a little ego stroke. I constantly watch players hands, movements, body language. This all can't be as insignificant as others say? I don't think so.

Some tells are simple like X loose player always tossing in his chips in play and when he has a monster he places them instead. Or the man who never talks during a hand now babbles when you nail him on a bluff. Another player talks as he bets when he is strong and is a quiet when he is not.

Some more complex like a player that looks at the flop when he is strong and looks at the players when he is weak. A poker friend I know purposely alters his body language and speech to induce a call from others when he is strong but normally plays quiet (this guy has amazing instincts). Took me several sessions to notice this in him.

I feel that the math oriented players might not have as good psychological instints as others. I don't have the super math insticts as the math players. I much rather play live and do better live.

So what say ye who feel like I do? And those who don't?

[bernie]

You have to remember that most posters on here don't play live.

b

In live games I usually deliberately give off different tells to fux with my opponents minds, im mostly what youd call a math player though. Its not really "math instincts" as you say, its more calculations and estimations.

That being said, yes, "bad" players give off tells that I pick up on. By watching how people act before their turn you can often have some insight into what they will do.

The problem with relying on tells too much is the following: Knowing your opponent is only moderately strong doesnt give you correct odds to hit your partial outs.

[onegymrat]

Hi Winky,

I agree with your thinking and have adopted a similar type of play as you have. Bernie is correct about the majority of players being online, therefore, they have little understanding (or the need to) about the topics that you presented. In their defense, I have little understanding of online strategies (I play only live) and I'm sure there is a world of strategies to learn for me.

One thing I want to add from my experience is that many new players try too hard to "find" tells from other players. After much experience, it finds you in a way. It's easier to concentrate on one person and look for any type of tell. Keep in mind, that person should be someone that you think your time is worth studying, such as someone who plays many hands and the chance of you two tangling is high.

Again, I agree with all your ideas. I also enjoy the social aspects of live poker, in which knowing how to play a player goes beyond tells, but with social interaction.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I want to add from my experience is that many new players try too hard to "find" tells from other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Got that right. Many newbies think it's about bluffing the other guy off a pot or that outplaying someone = winning every pot.

Which couldn't be farther from the truth.

b

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with relying on tells too much is the following: Knowing your opponent is only moderately strong doesnt give you correct odds to hit your partial outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But if, through tell-reading, you can narrow down the range of hands your opponent has, you gain additional "outs" of scare cards that you can use to push your opponent off the pot. Or you can save bets, such as when a pure math player might use game theory to bluff someone whom a tell reader would see as being ready to call any bet.

[AlanBostick]

All other things being equal, players who know the math and can use it will win the money from the players who don't.

All other things being equal, players who are good at reading tells will take the money from the players who aren't.

The edge of the math players over the non-math players is bigger, IMHO, over the edge of the tell-readers over the non-tell-readers.

But when everyone basically knows the math, it is the tell-readers who are going to get the money.

My own tid-bit of tell wisdom:

Good poker players are trying to fool you. When a good player does something that looks deliberate, there is an increased chance that she is doing it to deceive you. (Note that a good player who knows you've read Mike Caro's Book of Tells may do something deliberately strong-seeming to fool you into thinking her hand is weak.)

When you notice a good player does something that seems accidental or unintentional, that signal you're picking up is rather more likely to be truthful. It might or might not be telling the truth about the cards she holds, rather than her relationships or the quality of the food she's eating or whatever. But if you can read her unintentional signals, to the extent you can accurately read them as being about her cards, you can find out a surprising amount.

[Tilt]

I agree, there are many reliable tells among average players. Whenever I play live my winrate improves a whole lot as a result of these tells. But the kinds of tells that are more universally true are most reliable. Things like:
* Flinching for chips when they see a flop
* Protecting their cards most when they have a hand
* Shaking hands when they have a monster
* Acting overly strong (bluff symptom)
* Relaxing and becoming chatty when they have the nuts
* Staring at the board too long with a straight or straight draw
* Or my favorite - the man interrupting his lunch to bet is almost never bluffing

These, and some others I can't think off now, are the most useful. But in general I am reluctant to depend on player specific tells, like the ones you describe, unless I have seen them many times. Sure, these are sometimes reliable. But if you play with someone for only a couple of hours you can just as easily get thrown off by guessing on the meaning of these via a small sample.

And I think you don't want to try using tells from good poker players unless you have seen them for a while. Good players can throw you off.

[winky51]

Nope the specifics were because I played with those players a while. I love the lunch one.

[winky51]

I agree on both counts.