Nice work Zach 🙂
Good point about dropping the routine when all that's left to do is decide whether to call someone's shove too - there's really no point keeping it up, they've made their decision and no matter how much information we give away it won't change it. That's when we need to go to trying to extract information instead.
I think there's some good discussion to be had around Phil Laak's style / image management too, Ythelongface.
I'll open it with a question: exactly how effective do people think his hiding-in-the-hood routine (the one where he closes the hood all the way up and does the ties behind his head) really is?
Good point about dropping the routine when all that's left to do is decide whether to call someone's shove too - there's really no point keeping it up, they've made their decision and no matter how much information we give away it won't change it. That's when we need to go to trying to extract information instead.
I think there's some good discussion to be had around Phil Laak's style / image management too, Ythelongface.
I'll open it with a question: exactly how effective do people think his hiding-in-the-hood routine (the one where he closes the hood all the way up and does the ties behind his head) really is?
Yeah, that's when I like to show my hand as well usually. Like honestly you don't show to see if they like it or not, since they usually either have a monster or a bluff (because you don't think with trash or monsters, usually it's with bluff-catchers trying to see if you think they're on a bluff), but you want to judge how they react to it. Usually they're surprised to see you thinking of calling with such a marginal hand. Are they thinking "oh crap he's thinking of calling with that? Crap crap crap"? Or are they thinking "wow he's thinking of calling with that, hopefully he does". Probably wouldn't even work with competent players anyway, but on top of the initial reaction you see them trying to induce a call/fold. Just remember strong means weak and weak means strong. If they stare you down they're probably on a bluff, and if they get really quiet and look down at the table they've usually got the goods.OzExorcist said:
OzExorcist said:
100% effective. He's trying to make sure his face doesn't give off any tells. As long as he puts the hood up equally for bluffs and monsters, it accomplishes this goal.
Laak's a clown, the hardest tells are from players who don't care if they win or lose, ala Greenstein. I've never seen a player pushed off a pot with the winning hand as often as Ferguson,( and I really like the guy ) ala last years Aussie millions. Jennifer tittie plays the same way. The ONLY player I have no read on is Doyle, bugger pushes with the nuts or the shitz, and you can't tell which it is.
zachvac said:
Still, not a bad skill to pick up. And if you polish it up, it could be quite the useful tool.
OzExorcist said:
Interesting question. As far as giving off tells, once he zips up, it can be effective in concealing tells. But it could force Laak's opponents to think back to everything he did before going all in and methodically scrutinize the situation. So conceivably, this could force his opponents to analyze his play even more.
Instead of trying to pick up tells and figure out what hand he has, in some ways this simplifies the process of making the decision. His opponents could rather safely disregard Laak's behavior (especially since he won't be able to tell whether or not he's being observed) - this allows others to focus on figuring out his hand. This was the main drawback that I could come up with.
I've got a few more thoughts on Phil Laak:
First, is our face the only source of tells? Zach's alluded to this in his response, and the answer is no. In fact the likes of Joe Navarro suggest the face is actually the least honest part of the body.
Second, does Phil Laak actually have any significant facial tells anyway? I haven't spent hours and hours looking for them, but again, I feel the answer is no.
Look at this week's episodes of the wsop, for example. Laak plays the whole time without wearing his hoodie, let alone doing the hiding inside it routine. All the way through Season 2 of HSP, in which he was a big winner, the most he did was put the unzipped hood over his head - you could still see his face, and he didn't do the hiding routine.
Personally, I think he does it for two reasons. The first is that he just seems to like having a laugh at the table (and playing up for the cameras, when they're there). The second, though, is image management I think.
The hoodie shennanigans, among other things, have done a lot to build the image of "Phil Laak - wild and crazy guy". Thing is, he doesn't really play wild and crazy poker (at least, he doesn't seem to on TV) and he's a very smart guy. Referring back to the examples above, this week's WSOP episodes were full of him making tight laydowns and the in the HSP games where he won big he was one of the tightest players at the table.
I think as much as anything it's a ploy to make him seem a bit crazy and get him more action on his good hands - something which he might not get if he were just an everyday boring TAG.
Just a theory, but thoughts?
First, is our face the only source of tells? Zach's alluded to this in his response, and the answer is no. In fact the likes of Joe Navarro suggest the face is actually the least honest part of the body.
Second, does Phil Laak actually have any significant facial tells anyway? I haven't spent hours and hours looking for them, but again, I feel the answer is no.
Look at this week's episodes of the wsop, for example. Laak plays the whole time without wearing his hoodie, let alone doing the hiding inside it routine. All the way through Season 2 of HSP, in which he was a big winner, the most he did was put the unzipped hood over his head - you could still see his face, and he didn't do the hiding routine.
Personally, I think he does it for two reasons. The first is that he just seems to like having a laugh at the table (and playing up for the cameras, when they're there). The second, though, is image management I think.
The hoodie shennanigans, among other things, have done a lot to build the image of "Phil Laak - wild and crazy guy". Thing is, he doesn't really play wild and crazy poker (at least, he doesn't seem to on TV) and he's a very smart guy. Referring back to the examples above, this week's WSOP episodes were full of him making tight laydowns and the in the HSP games where he won big he was one of the tightest players at the table.
I think as much as anything it's a ploy to make him seem a bit crazy and get him more action on his good hands - something which he might not get if he were just an everyday boring TAG.
Just a theory, but thoughts?
I just checked out the youtube about fergusens tell that philthy linked to, and the main thing I picked up was his aces play his arm extended slightly when he bet (looked more natural) his flush draw he extended it almost completely and his bluff, his elbow never left the table. Anyone else pick up on that or see anything else??
This topic is a joke if you guys really think you can rely on something you saw on TV three times to be a tell for a top pro. Most of the people you are talking about make a lot of money playing this game, do you really think they would have made it this long to have their weakness spotted by an amateur watching on TV?
I mean, lets try to think about this in the real world. The idea of people having "a tell" like the stuff made famous in Rounders will do nothing but leave you broke. There are general tells, ie. strong or weak, but no good player does certain things with their body language when they have pocket Aces that they don't do when they has pocket queens.
Tells are overrated. They are a piece of the puzzle, but this topic just kinda makes me laugh. How many of you have ever sat down and played with one of these guys? I don't think your sample size is really large enough to make a profitable judgment.
I mean, lets try to think about this in the real world. The idea of people having "a tell" like the stuff made famous in Rounders will do nothing but leave you broke. There are general tells, ie. strong or weak, but no good player does certain things with their body language when they have pocket Aces that they don't do when they has pocket queens.
Tells are overrated. They are a piece of the puzzle, but this topic just kinda makes me laugh. How many of you have ever sat down and played with one of these guys? I don't think your sample size is really large enough to make a profitable judgment.
white_lytning said:
There's so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to start :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
First of all, we're talking about players that are good at concealing tells and what we can learn from them. Not "When Gus Hansen jiggles his feet he totally has aces and you should totally fold your kings when you're playing him next week".
Second, nobody's claiming that tells can tell you the difference between someone holding aces and queens.
Third, FWIW I think the whole Oreos thing in Rounders was inane.
Fourth, to the implication that pros don't have tells, the evidence states otherwise. Phil Hellmuth admits to having them exposed on TV, and the presence of tells in pros is something that keeps guys like Joe Navarro in a job.
Are they the whole game? Hell no. But if you play live and ignore them, you undoubtedly do so to your detriment - you'd be better off staying behind your computer monitor.
Now, back to the topic. Who's got any thoughts on the Unified Phil Laak theory, or other pros whose tell-concealing behaviour we could learn from?
I'd say Ivey is pretty hard to read i mean just look at this for a poker face haha.
YouTube - Phil Ivey hides his tilt very well
YouTube - Phil Ivey hides his tilt very well
I'm not saying pros don't have tells. I'm saying that a person that sees Gus Hanson turn his head a certain way in three televised hands does not have enough information to declare, "ooo, hes strong when his head goes to the right". The sample size is too small.
If this person were to play in a game with Gus and make plays based on this "tell" they would probably lose a lot of money.
If this person were to play in a game with Gus and make plays based on this "tell" they would probably lose a lot of money.
white_lytning said:
Absolutely it's too small a sample. But again, you're missing the point:
1 - Nobody is actually expecting that tells they pick up on players in televised games will have any bearing on any game they're ever likely to play. You don't do it because you really want to know what Gus Hansen's specific tells are because let's face it, most of us are internet players, and even those of us who play live are hardly likely to sit down opposite Gus or Phil (that can be any Phil you like, BTW, it hardly matters which) or whoever else.
The point of doing something like that is so that you can get better at spotting tells in general, and maybe apply some of what you learn to the Regular Joes that you actually play with.
(FWIW though, if I found ahead of time I was going to be playing against someone who'd played on TV I'd sure as hell be reviewing the footage, for a number of reasons. Tells would be one of them and small sample size or no, it's still better than going in cold).
2 - Like I said before, what we're actually talking about here is concealing tells and what we can learn and apply from the pros that are good at it.
I think the summary so far is there's a few approaches:
- The Brunson / Greenstein approach: play for so many years and win so many millions of dollars that it's just normal for your face and actions to be blank and impassive. Effective, but difficult to replicate. I think Phil Ivey, mentioned above (LOL at the video Mehman 😛), probably fits into this category too.
- The Ferguson / Fischman / Hellmuth* approach of adopting specific poses and betting actions for every single hand. Effective if you can get it right, and much easier to replicate.
- The Negreanu / Laak approach of giving your opponent other things to think about or misdirecting them. I've got mad respect for anyone that can pulls this off properly, gawd knows I'm pretty rubbish at it.
The Ferguson / Fischman approach is the one Joe Navarro recomments in Read 'em and Reap as well, and it was kinda the catalyst for this thread. It's effective and relatively easy to apply, but at the same time it's gotta be acknowledged that sitting there like a robot just isn't for everyone.
Any other alternatives people can suggest or want to discuss for those that don't want to do the robot routine?
(* We didn't actually discuss Hellmuth, but it's the same basic approach as Ferguson - sometimes with the addition of a high collar so people can't observe the pulse in his neck. Always wondered before that why he wore those horrible ski jackets in Season 1 of the WPT. He makes departures from it, but usually only when they won't affect his opponent's decisions.)
OzExorcist said:
IMO, the hat originally was mostly there to let people forget Chris Ferguson actually has a PhD in computer science. Better not to advertise that you're probably the smartest person at the table. Of course that doesn't work anymore once you won a fair share of WSOP bracelets.
Nowadays i guess it's mostly marketing.
BelgoSuisse said:
Yeah, I saw him say the same thing in an interview once too (might've even been from earlier in this year's WSOP, can't remember).
Josegas, we discussed Negreanu (and Ivey, to a small extent) earlier, there could be more material in them though. What exactly is it that you think makes them hard to read?