I was on Limon's podcast last night, and we got talking about this behavior. I was telling Limon how this pattern seems very obvious now in hindsight, but I'd never seen it talked about or written about before. I was mainly made aware of it in the last few months as I was going through a bunch of video for the video courses I was working on. I'm actually surprised it wasn't as clear to me before. Like a lot of things, it becomes super-clear once you think of it.

The pattern is this:

Post-flop, when a player double-checks his cards soon before making a significant bet, he will hardly ever be bluffing.

Logically, this makes sense because double-checking your cards before betting could easily be perceived as uncertainty, and bluffers don't want to accidentally convey uncertainty.

A few things about this pattern:

• I want to limit it to post-flop, because pre-flop is much more varied just due to hand strength usually not being as defined yet. Whereas post-flop things are much more defined.
• Also, double-checking before betting doesn't mean that a player is necessarily super-strong. It just makes it unlikely he's bluffing. There could still be many vulnerable value hands in his range.
• Finally, we're talking specifically about double-checking SOON BEFORE a significant bet. We're not talking about double-checking after a bet, or before a check or a call, or double-checking long before a bet. Just want to really define it so there's no ambiguity.

I'd made a video about this pattern for my poker tells series and in it I pointed out that virtually every instance I'd seen of this behavior in logging dozens of Windy City tournaments and cash games recently had been value bets. And this also applied to the $2-5 and $2-5-10 NLHE games I'd been playing in the last few months since starting to really look for the pattern more.

Last night, Limon said that he thought this was one of the classic tells Caro talked about. I didn't think it was, but it wouldn't have been impossible for me to be mistaken, so I double-checked and it wasn't in there. (At least not where I looked; if anyone thinks I overlooked it, let me know.) All that was in Caro's book about double-checking was the fact that it's often legitimate when a player checks on suited boards, and that when a player double-checks his cards AFTER betting and stares at them, it's usually a bluff. (I don't really have an opinion about this, but I will say that I find staring at hole cards much more likely to be weak in general, although I think things get more complicated when we're talking post-big-bet.)

Limon seemed very aware of the double-checking-before-betting-being-strong pattern, and I think his certainty about it being a classic tell is just due to it being kind of obvious for experienced players. Limon also pointed out that he plays a lot of PLO, which involves a lot more double-checking (both genuine and feigned), so that might explain why he's so keyed into it. Frankly I'm surprised I had never really thought about it or written about it, as it does seem so obvious in hindsight. And I wouldn't have been surprised if someone had written about it.

But I think I'm right that it's one of these things that was overlooked. So many people have talked about trying to distinguish real versus fake double-checks on suited board textures, and I think this is one of those cases where it really pays to take a very specific situation (double-checking cards before a significant post-flop bet) and just drill down into it and see how it shows up. The power of defining a very precise situation and then studying it.

Love to hear anyone's thoughts and experiences with this. It's definitely saved me some money in a few spots recently when I was on the fence about calling a river bet and led me to fold.

checking cards after a bet post flop is weak

That's what Caro wrote about; he said that a double-check of hole cards after betting is weak. I don't have a strong opinion about this. I have seen it done a lot with both strong and weak hands. It may skew more towards bluffs but I'm not confident in that.

If I am playing a long MTT, there is a point where my brain just can't remember my cards for a few hands. This lasts four or five hands, so I will check them. However I never think of it as a sign of strength.

Great post Zac. I have never really paid much attention to it, thank you for bringing it to light !

How often do you actually look soon before betting, though? As opposed to checking, as is more usual, when the board comes out or the new card comes out? The point is that if someone has to legitimately double-check their cards, they are more apt to do it when it's least conspicuous. This is why so many legitimate double-checks are done when new cards are coming out, or there is some other distraction; it's when people are paying the least attention.

But of course some people double-check their cards a lot. And maybe you do check your cards before betting in a balanced way when you're tired. Like with all behavior stuff, if someone's checking their cards in a lot of spots (before a bet or in whatever situation) there's not going to be much information there.

It's not super-common. (And obviously if someone isn't doing it, you don't have any info.) But since I've started paying attention to it in the $2-5 and $5-10 games I've been playing the last few months (just couple days a week), I've seen it several times a session and it's been maybe 4-5 times that it's made me confidently fold to a turn or river bet where I otherwise would have been on the fence. There's been a couple players in particular who are very prone to doing it. It often shows up with other uncertain behaviors, like really seeming to debate over the exact bet amount, or taking an abnormally long time to bet.

The key to your question is "right before betting". I guess it depends if I am in early position I will check before I bet. It isn't often, there is just some point in a game where I suffer from CRS and I have to look. Usually at that point I want to become less aggressive because I am not playing my best.

(CRS, Can't Remember Stuff)

Players are more likely to double-check their cards in a multi-way pot because they may have momentarily forgotten their exact hand while waiting for other players and tiring to follow the action. Players are unlikely to bluff in a multi-way pot. Semibluff, perhaps, but I am unsure if you treat betting on the come like a bluff or like a thin value bet.

I wonder if this tell is slightly different in pots that are heads-up on the flop.

Is a player less likely to double check when he has a pocket pair because that is easily memorable? If you can eliminate sets from his likely range, noticing this tell might mean you should consider bluff-raising on certain boards if you have the right image.

Just wanted to reiterate that this pattern is mainly applicable to players who are double-checking hole cards soon before making a significant bet (like a big turn or river bet), and not to be confused with the many weak, legitimate double-checks that often happen when it's not a person's turn to act. And not to be confused with a lot of the small flop bets that are harder to categorize because it's a much less meaningful spot and hand strength isn't going to be as defined.

I actually have a video about how all the many little waiting-for-action double-checks and staring at hole cards (especially in multi-way pots) after the flop are pretty reliable tells of weakness. And this is mainly because a player who flops strong has a tendency to avoid drawing attention to themselves; this means that a player who flops strong is unlikely to double-check their cards before it's their turn to act. But once it becomes a player's turn to act, a player with a vulnerable or weak hand will usually have an incentive to not double-check their cards right before they bet. And this becomes more true the larger the bet is and the more defined the hand strength is.

So regarding the double-checking before a significant bet behavior; it's mainly going to be useful when an opponent is making a large turn or river bet. And preferably you'll have seen that tell being accurate for that specific player in the past. Although against most recreational players it's reliable enough for me to just trust it as a tell of strength without having seen it from the player before.

All I know is that when someone checks their cards after a 2nd or 3rd suited card come, they don't have 2 suited hole cards; just one of the flush cards at the most.

People are more likely to remember they have 2 suited cards rather than just the 1. Like a 3rd diamond comes on the turn and they check their hand. 80% of the time I've found they have like Ad Ts type hands if they are loose.

That's one of my favorite fake tells to use.

I have to credit beyondpokertells for that one, but once I paid attention it did seem to prove useful...A lot.

I haven't found this kind of thing useful in practice. Versus quite unskilled players, they will have these kinds of obvious patterns. In the games I've played ($2-5 and $5-10, even at $1-2 though) it's such an obvious tell that most players are cognizant they need to balance and doublecheck sometimes when they do actually have the flush.

Having said that, I find that the more ostentatious double-checks of cards from players who are waiting-to-act will tend to make strong hands unlikely. And this is just because players who have hit very well don't like to draw attention to themselves. For example, a player who flops a flush will usually be stoic and instinctually not want to draw attention to themselves. Double-checks combined with long looks at cards are even more valuable; long looks make it very unlikely they're strong, because players with strong hands generally don't like to stare at their cards.

I used this just a few days ago in a $2-5 game where a guy double-checked his cards and looked at them for a couple seconds when an all-heart flop came out in a four-way pot, checked, and then called my bet. On a pretty blank turn, he led into me for a pretty large bet and I thought he either was quite strong or quite weak. Knowing he double-checked his cards right when the flop came out encouraged me to call his turn bet with top pair, medium-kicker, when otherwise I would have been on the fence about continuing. (Sure, sometimes he may have been faking it with a flopped flush; the tell isn't infallible. The point is it's just a generally reliable tell of non-focus and weakness. And combined with a longer look at the cards it's even more reliable.)

Again, this is a separate behavior we're talking about then someone who double-checks their cards right before making a significant bet; just wanted to be clear about the distinction.

What did he end up having?

Wanted to add a couple things to this thread.

Wrote this article for PokerNews recently, which includes a video clip of the behavior and talks about the behavior at last year's WSOP ME: http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/re...fore-24045.htm


Also, I just was randomly reviewing something from the 2013 WSOP ME and noticed this behavior from Marc McLoughlin. This was the hand where Loosli made a mistake and accidentally raised the flop, followed by McLoughlin 3-bet-shoving with the flush. Before he shoved he checks his cards. Watching this again, I couldn't remember what Marc had but when I saw him double-check his cards, I was pretty confident he was strong. Unlikely he's bluffing here of course, just fundamentally, but still, if you were on the fence about him having a hand or trying to take advantage of his opponent's mistake, this might have been a factor.

Oh, right; he checked the river and just had a flush draw and weak pair, something like that. He could have had me beat, but point is that I thought his behavior made flushes significantly less likely.

I think you're spot on on this read. It's interesting that you mention you hadn't picked up on it in the past, but now that the cat is out of the bag it stares you in the face.

Same revelation just occurred on this side of the computer screen

I also am inclined to agree that the re-check doesn't necessarily indicate strength, just that the player connected with the board some how and is not likely bluffing.

I fell for this the other day and missed out on a pretty big pot.

I had raised in LP with AJ and B and 2 other called. This is a pretty loose 2/5 game and I'm pretty loose as well, so for me to see 4-way to the Flop is pretty normal.

Flop came JT8 and it checks to me. Normally I would bet here, but stacks were pretty shallow and I wanted to see how the B handled his action since he is usually pretty solid and NEVER folds if he gets to the River. He also looked like he wanted to raise PF but didn't.

As Zack describes, when action is on him he cuts some chips to bet and then stops to double check his cards before betting 80% pot. Call, call from the other 2. At this point in time I'm not really that proud of my hand (at this table anyway) and figure I'm in either fold or raise/shove mode into 3 players based on stack sizes remaining. I actually decided to fold. (You can jump on me about that in a different thread)

The board finishes out 62 with NO additional betting!! Hands turned over were 9T, J9 and 87 .. and no flush draws!! Our V was the one with J9.

I think this hits Zach's point right in the middle. We can 'see' that our V had 'something' but not necessarily the nuts and more importantly, not nothing when he double checks his cards.

Certainly my play is up for debate not wanting to get involved with this pot any further, but I think it hits the basis of this thread pretty solidly. GL