Body language and motions to misdirect the strength of their hand is a common one among the weaker players who have played a fair amount of casino poker. In particular, strength-feigning.

Good example: There was some action that involved me having AK in a 4-5 way raised pot (where I was the PFR) for like 125 in the middle.

I whiff some like T hi flop and let it check through. Turn A checks to me, I go ahead and stick a reasonable bet out there (like 80) and some guy calls.

River Q and this guy immediately starts reaching for his chips, playing with them, looking like he's getting ready to bet. Finally, after some 30 second show of strength, he...checks. I immediately decide that I should try to size down to collect a call and bet 110. He unfortunately folds immediately.

You can see exactly what someone is trying to do. Since poker is heavily a game of misdirection and psychologically influencing what your opponents will do (something most guys who are, frankly, much better at picking up these live tells than I am), then it'd make sense for someone to give off the aura of strength to try and spook his opponent into letting him showdown his cheeseball middle pair. But on the other hand, would you ever try to spook an opponent out of putting $ in the pot on the Txx-A-Q board if you were holding the stone nuts? Of course not. So acting strong is often just that: an act.

Relaxation, on the other hand, often is a sign of strength. People, by nature, tend to be way more nervous about losing money than they are excited to win money, so once they have the hand locked up (in their mind), some will begin to relax in ways that they normally do not. The guy who never talks during a hand suddenly starts talking about the World Series after shipping the turn? May be because he's not scared of losing.

A great example of this was some old school hand analyzed by The Poker Guys between Ted Forrest and some amateur. Said amateur gave off both the tells I mentioned: first on the flop, he had a marginal hand and instacalled a cbet, probably to spook Ted out of betting turn on J76 or something. Since Ted had AJ, he happily bet the turn 3 handed, and this guy nervously check raised his hand. Ted called, but on the river 7, this guy now shoved his trip 7's and began chatting and joking with his rail. Ted, who was in 100% call down mode, folded.

Sorry for the long winded reply .

Ted Forrest was so underrated. Made unbelievable reads, never gets nervous.

The Poker Guys make trash videos with terrible analysis. I challenged them to analyze hands where the hole cards are not revealed and they didn't respond. They are constantly justifying crazy plays from internet players using excessively complex jargon while incorrectly critiqueing plays from guys like Doyle using logic that wraps itself around in circles.

"It was incorrect for Doyle to check his set here because (insert bunch of jumble that uses words like EV incorrectly, range, value, etc.) while Dwan was correct to bet out both flop and turn because (again more senseless jargon)."

The Poker Guys should do a live stream of an online session just so we can see how meritless their analysis really is. Doug Polk recently did a video about The Armchair Poker Player. That's what Poker Guys are. A couple of armchair poker players. Doug Polk isn't perfect, but his analysis videos are coming from someone who actually makes money playing poker (he does his Youtube videos to upsell his supremely overpriced snake oil poker videos) not a couple of guys trying to make Youtube/affiliate revenue.

Easiest tells are the ones that come pre flop. Especially after a couple hours of play, players start relaxing and their shoulders are hitting the back of their chairs (slouching backwards). When a good hand pops up, they start sitting upwright and they get engaged.

I also like to act like I have a big decision when they jam or make a bet on the river to see if they stay like a rock. Sometimes, they move or say some random garbage after a while because they can't handle the anxiety. When that happens, it's usually a sign that they don't want to get called.

Perky lips are usual signs of lies too.

I like this one

+1

Has anyone gotten successful reads based on bet sizing? I know in a lot of weaker games players adjust there bet sizing based on hand strength, but I am wondering if we will actually get to see there hands often enough to build ranges based on bet sizing.

Yes but the key is just what you said - you must see their hands - OR see the behavior after the flop comes out to establish a reasonable read on their hands.

For instance - if a guy bets $35 and shuts down when the flop has higher cards, you've got a reasonable read that he's betting a mid pair and now hates the flop.

But visual confirmation is always good.

Bet sizing can give off useful information, especially after playing with someone for some time, but you can also 'ABC' certain situations that are fairly consistent at lower stakes.

The 'go away' (pot sized) bet is a very popular Flop or Turn bet in a couple of spots ...
1) When a player with AA/KK smashes down a 'go away' bet when the Flop comes out dry just because he wants to take it down rather than risk any suckouts. Issue is that he only gets called when crushed by a set and folds out all other 'value' holdings that would've like to peel another card at a more reasonable price. Obviously 'poker' players in this spot may have AK or weaker holdings and are trying to 'balance' their range somehow.

2) When a player thinks they're ahead but is facing a wet draw heavy Board and just wants to take it down now rather than face an uncertain 'next' decision ... especially when OOP.

PF raises can vary based on hand strength for sure, especially from players who don't open very often. We tend to joke "The bigger the raise, the weaker the holding" but you would be amazed at just how often this is true. GL

My favourite tell is the looking away to watch the TV when strong lol. I do this to people I assume know the tell.

Any big bluff I watch the TV. Value I stare at the table. Worked like a charm last session made a guy fold TPTK when I had a FD on a A549 board lol.

Generally reading - unless someone has a super consistent, massively obvious tell - is the last thing I consider when playing a hand (i.e. only when I'm totally unsure about what to do)

This is something I've noticed with novice players at our home game (semi-reliably):

Downsizing the chips they put in play (i.e. grabbing some chips to raise but putting some of them away before raising) -> can be an indication for a bluff. If you want to get value wouldn't you rather add chips than put them away?
I don't think the opposite holds, BTW. Adding chips to the ones in hand can be a bluff or a value bet.

Checking their hole cards on third card of a suit on board - as a tell that they don't yet have the flush (against good players who think I am a weak player - and who know this behavior by weak players - I've used this as a reverse tell when I've already made my flush quite profitably. Only works once a night but has a high chance of stacking them when they call down my seemingly 'big busted flush bluff')

For average players:
Looking at their cards (especially with a flush draw on board)
and
taking their time thinking
and
then making an overbet -> they have it.

Clicking back (especially on the river) is rarely a pure bluff (dunno about online, but live this has worked for me).

Any player who is interested in tells will know Mike Caro's book..which sorta means that I wouldn't put too much value on the tells described therein when playing with anyone but pure amateurs (even the really physiological ones which are hard to fake like shaky hands - pros don't have that anymore). If you have someone with a scarf at the table then they know about physical tells 100% guaranteed. I don't even bother to try reading them.

Wouldn't those be more likely the stronger players (who probably know about tells and know how to use them against you)?

I try to chew gum at the table. I think (hope) it helps against giving away all sorts of facial tells like moving lips, swallowing, breathing, etc. , and it also gives you something to do while you stare into space when villain tries to phaze you..not sure if that covers the pulse thing reliably, tho.

90% of all numbers in statistics are made up
(Not doubting the tell...just the exactness of the estimate )

Mr. Gum Chewer .. You have plenty of tells that when combined with normal tells make you an easier mark ... ... Double Mint or Spearmint? GL

PS .. I know a guy (not me) who carries gum with him specifically for this purpose ... to pass it out to the rest of the table.

That's interesting...what would those tells be (of course being carefull sticking to a specific chewing rhytm and strength during a hand)? I would have assumed concentrating on making one specific motion that is very regular would mask smaller/involuntary ticks that stand out in people trying to go for a stoney/pokerface approach? (and that it would also keep you from being chatty or having other kinds of reactions to speech-play.)

the one i found most reliable is when an average player leans back (weakness) or towards the table (strong hand)
-average as in wont trick with pseudo tells-

They are similar to a chronic chip shuffler ... stopping/starting, pace ... still need a baseline with some 'examples' but can be reliable. GL

Can't tell if you're joking...is chewing gum really considered some kind of tell or exacerbates other tells?

I constantly chew gum while playing. Has nothing to do with tells (initially at least) but rather I have people sitting right next to me and don't want to have bad breath. And at less than two feet pretty much everyone not chewing gum or eating mints has unpleasant breath.

I have found gum makes it easier for me to relax though and maintain the same behavior when bluffing as I would value betting. Without gum I just concentrate on my breathing and stare at one spot but sometimes concentrating on my breathing I realize I'm breathing too fast and it takes me too long to correct. Chewing gum it's like some of my mental energy is diverted and I can concentrate on just chewing gum.

Did you read the previous post? #39? 'Any' physical activity can be a tell. It's just a matter of any patterns that develop. You just indicated that it relaxes you .. but at what pace? Do you chew fast when value betting and chew slower, or not at all, when you are bluffing ... or when a bad (or good) card peel off the deck for the Board?

As a 'regular' chewer you may be able to control it more than others .. thus the guy who brings gum to the table who wants non-reg chewers to give off tells that they don't even know they are doing. GL

Oh. I constantly chew at the same pace. I don't see how anyone could glean any information from this. But it could be like bouncing my leg. I constantly do that and sometimes people who have not played with me erroneously conclude I'm nervous or something.

Never even thought people passing out gum might have ulterior motivations. Not that I see people passing out gum much. I just give people gum if they ask me for some.

If I have any actual information leaks I expect it's some kind of timing tell. I try to take roughly the same amount of time to make bets, but to really do this properly would mean I'm tanking all the time even for simple decisions. I haven't figured out a way not to have timing tells without acting insanely slow all the time, and since I don't want to be getting clocked all the time I often act faster with easier decisions (though I still avoid instant decisions).

It's pretty hard to eliminate all possible tells at low stakes. There are other traits that go along with the timing of bets. Most low stakes players know enough about the game to know when a 'decision' needs to be made and will allow you the benefit a some 'extra' time. The issue is that the amount of time changes based on the decision IMO.

You will actually attract more attention at low stakes if you 'tank' on every decision than if you just pick 'appropriate' spots to tank. For a low stakes Player, there is no reason to tank a Turn decision on AxKy9x2z ... nothing changed from the Flop, so unless you are facing a polarizing bet it should be 'easier' to decide to call/raise/fold this decision than the decision you made on the Flop.

Certainly you should get 'extra' time when facing a 3-bet, especially if you opened. But if you are facing an open and 3-bet players know enough about the game that your range should be pretty small here to tank 'every' time. GL

I get what you're saying in that the turn rarely changes anything, but my action on the turn can affect the probability I was slowplaying a monster. In the example you give, let's say I have AQ and call OTF. The turn doesn't change anything unless I spiked a set. But if I quickly call a turn bet it pretty much eliminates AA KK and AK from my range and makes it very likely I have a FD or a strong Ace. Villains paying attention should be able to pick up when I have a marginal strength hand vs. when I'm polarized, which is not good.

This is mostly a problem when I'm the aggressor. For instance, I open JT in the CO, BB calls, flop A92, BB x, and I decide (correctly or not) to C-bet here. BB calls. Turn is say the 8, BB x, and I fire again. He calls. I've acted reasonably quickly in both spots because I picked up a ton of equity OTT. Now the river is the 3. I missed, but I may be able to bluff here. However if I try to act within 5s I'm likely to mess up. So I take more like 30s, maybe longer. If villain is paying attention to me he knows I likely have a big flush or air.

I'm sure you see the problem. If I act quickly on later streets I'm not bluffing, but I'm probably not nutted either. If I'm bluffing I need time to think about villain's range and whether he'll fold enough for a bluff to be profitable. If I'm nutted I take some time to think about villain's range and what the optimum bet size is. So... I don't think people can tell if I'm bluffing or not but they might be able to tell when I'm polarized.

I used to try tanking in all kinds of unnecessary spots but I was getting clocked once a week. Now I've gotten better at acting quickly in simple spots and try just to tank when I close the action and actually need to think, as if I'm closing the action it doesn't really matter what info I leak. But the problem still remains of certain spots where I have choices and acting fast makes it probable I'm not considering certain choices (like if I call fast I'm not considering raising, and if I quickly raise I'm not considering calling).

Preflop vs a 3-bet I always take at least 10s. That's about all I need because it's usually not that complicated whether I 4-bet, but often I only "need" 1s. Like I bet, OMC min 3-bets me, I'm never 4-betting him with 99. It's a 100% call, but snap calling seems to turn my hand face up so I don't even when I can. When I 3-bet someone and they snap call I'm immediately removing some JJ, QQ, and AK combos they might have if they took longer to act.

I guess getting faster at ranging villains is the best cure for this problem, as the only other one I can see is always tanking to match the *longest* I ever genuinely need, which is really bad for the game for a lot of reasons.

Everything you say has merit, but you are also ranging you and I'm giving you credit for not being 'average'. I think you are giving the other Players too much credit in their observations ... or maybe I'm not giving enough (or too much).

If you are taking super strong hands out of your range then you are also taking them out of other Players range as well probably, which I think needs to be looked at. There's nothing wrong with conceding to (agreeing with) your opponent that a Turn or River was a blank and really doesn't need too much thought consideration. You really aren't giving off 'too much' information nor should it limit your options on the next street. It was (is) a blank ... let's move on.

If you watch the SHRB on PokerGo you will see that 'everyone' constantly used 22-28 seconds for 'every' decision ... until they got into the final 4-5 Players. After that they, and especially DNegs, got into 'next hand' mode when they missed. Now I'm jumping on your bandwagon a little here and going to say that I really think it hurt DNegs along the way because it did give off information as to whether he hit or missed a Board.

Again, your comments have merit, I just think they are going too far for the games I play in. GL

Fellow live-readers y'all missed the winner ... The Hollywood. One of many reasons to take your time in tough spots, when they start acting it up, it's time to let go.

Second place for me is hesitation in the course of moving chips in for a bet or raise. A typical example would be a positional open deep in a NLHE tournament where a player is moving chips forward with a hand in the air and checks the forward motion just slightly as if to give the chips a soft landing on the felt. Assuming the player is not a big stack that bet will be quite meaningful to them, and if they have no intention of calling a 3 bet that space of mind can become apparent through the hesitation.

For context I read ZE's books last month and played both PLO and NLHE tournies this week ($500+) and focussed a lot on a few potential live tells. The hesitation tell was far more prevalent in NLHE, which makes abundant sense since in PLO you are far more likely to have equity to go with the hand if raised anyway.

I hear lots of looking at own stack as being strong, but I think looking at someone elses is also strong, unconscience check to see how much I can win.

Work both way, same tell, dont two different ways...

and watched for properly, the head scratch, or neck scratch, Its frustration, its universal in humans and if you have a base line to go with it can be a wonderful tell..

Thread title answer.

The big problem with all the research on tells is that virtually every tell can be interpreted in different ways. That's why Elwood repeatedly stresses how important it is to know your opponent's baseline behavior - only then can you determine if the current behavior deviates from his baseline.

However, there are occasionally situations when you can pick up an objective tell based on the situation. Here's an example of a hand I played in a local live small tourney.

I raise A5hh in middle position and only the BB calls. Flop 943 with 2 diamonds and no heart. He checks, I check behind. Flop is the Td. He checks and I decide to bluff at it. He then double-checks his hole cards and makes the call. I think to myself, "He checked for a diamond and had one, so he decided to call with his draw. I'm bluffing any non-diamond river."

River is a non-diamond 6, he checks, I bet, he folds.

I have a theory that when someone looks at their hole cards for a few moments, and their eyes scan back and forth between each one, it's because they're trying to remember the different suits. If they end up doing something strong preflop like 3betting or 4betting, it's thus somewhat more likely that they have a pocket pair rather than, say, AKs.