Can't remember but think this is a tell from Caro's old book I read a long time ago. Villain bets and his hands go right back to his chip stack.

I feel when I do this I'm usually weak, as it's protective. Is this a tell?

Not sure. 20 years since I read book. Do not remember seeing or using this one.

If I had to take a wild guess I would say your opponent may be weak. Was it deliberate or subconscious? If subconscious he liked his hand. If deliberate he didn't. Maybe he was trying to show strength - a bit similar to when a player acts out of turn and throws his chips in to put you off betting. Could that be it?

Player style and proclivities will have a bearing. Say more and I'll dig deeper. I like this kind of poker problem.

I compare it to when you reach for chips and they reach for chips for the snap call or pretend. I would say it’s weak.

Best chip/hands tell that I've noticed in LHE is the hands shaking which means big/monster hand or the chips being sloppily tossed in meaning weakness versus a bet placed deliberately and cleanly meaning they have something. Tons of players do the chip toss versus clean bets almost constantly and is a very reliable tell from players that seem to "mix in" these chip styles.

I couldn't agree more that these two particular tells are extremely reliable. It is very unlikely that any player you come across who bets big with shaky hands hasn't got the nuts. Pretty much the same level of reliability with the aggressive betting, but that could be easier to 'fake'. I've actually had a big call from this type of bet when I DID have the hand. The rest is an anecdote:

So it's on the the river - big pot and we're near the tourney bubble - the opponent, bad player he was - can hardly ever make a correct decision, announces, "I know he's got the flush". I had the nuts, and he's umming and aahing, moaning and groaning, and eventually he checks.

So he carries on whilst I'm deciding what to do, "I know he's got it", he announces to all and sundry. Now, there's no way he's going to call anything but a small bet, if that. A bet for value does appear to be the only choice, but how much will he call? A crying call IS likely, but just how much will he pay to satisfy his curiosity?

On the basis that bad players should be given the opportunity to make big mistakes I scooped up my whole stack and slammed it down on the table. "I know he's got the flush", continued the refrain from the bad player, but he eventually decided to make the call. It was a bit of an abnormal situation in that I knew the exact feelings of the other player towards both his and my hand, I knew their skill level and I had plenty of time to figure out a suitable play. This kind of relates to why TAG play works well, in that aggressive betting can often be perceived by some players as being unrepresentative of what you actually hold in your hand because they lack sound judgement.

I don't believe there is a tell in Caro's book that covers betting and then moving their hand back to the chip stack. However, there is a tell about moving their hand to their chips before it's their turn to act. That one is an attempt to get you to check, not necessarily that he won't call, but prefers that it be checked down.

Also, everything in that book focused on limit poker, so it would be of limited use today.

This has been one of the most profitable lessons I have ever learned. In fact I would be willing to attribute most of my profit over the years.

Understanding bad players who are calling stations. They will always pay off much more than you think. In fact, I sometimes think overbets make them more likely to call. Mire often than not, when I reflect back on a session I have played, I end up finding my biggest mistakes are not betting more against a calling station.

As a huge proponent to live tells, I've never really 'studied' the hand returning to the stack as a reliable tell. In today's world where lots of Players shuffle chips 'of course' they need to return to their stack and get back to that activity.

I guess I will say that whether it be before or after a Player has chips in the betting area that a hand that is postured as ready to move chips is usually a sign of "Don't challenge me, I'm ready to go all the way" The issue is whether or not they are serious about their 'threat' .. and I think you really need some data to lean one way or the other. If you forced me to lean one way I'd say if they are deep stacked in relation to the pot, it's a sign of weakness and if they are short, then the chips will snap go in.

I have plenty of Players in my pool who will go to their chips when I start to assembly a bet and then snap fold when I put it out. I'm a bit intrigued by this one and will give it a shot, but I'm usually looking at the Player who action is on rather than the Player who just bet. GL

I think this is a perfect read. The size of their stack is a huge influence on the reliability of the tell

Please use the reach back tell against me, as I reach back to my stack after every single bet in order to start shuffling chips.

OP is not talking about a chronic shuffler .. it's when a Player goes back and 'palms' a barrel or is poised in a chip gripping position with their hand when it's not their turn to act. Similar to a Player who 'prematurely' starts to cut out chips when they are next to act, but there's a Player still to act between. GL

How come we're not allowed to say "I'll see you're 10 (while putting in calling chips) and I raise to 50." like it used to be?

Because it's a verbal string raise?

Can we say, "Raise...here's the call and now 50 on top"? Or is not now a min raise once we say, 'here's the call'?

This seems to be the verbal equivalent of the old veral raise, put in call and then single (or even older multiple continuous) move(s)) of the raise chips.

In my life, other than home games, this sort of thing was only in the 1970s biggest games in Vegas - where they paid seat rental, not a drop.

Besides, I always found that annoying.

The rule modified in 2019 eliminated two 'motion' bets. So I think we need more information here .. IMO it's technically a 'race' between any motions the Player is making and when the verbal statement was completed and perhaps a sprinkling of how long the pause(s) was during the statement.

IMO technically if the Player releases the call chips in the betting area before he completes his statement, then it 'should' be a min-raise. Whether a Floor upholds the min-raise would depend on how the Dealer describes the spot. This would be similar to a Player flipping a black into the air and then verbalizing an amount before the chip hit the felt .. the first completed 'action' is the one that should stand.

If the Player cuts out the call without (a lot of) forward motion (or to the side of the remaining stack) and release, then the full raise should apply.

IMO most people would assume that the "... here's the call ... " part of the statement was tied to some sort of motion by the Player or it really doesn't make sense. GL

Here is a similar one I think I remember from Caro and I find it to be true today. If the player covers his cards with his hands but doesn't normally do so, he's trying to protect what he thinks are valuable cards.

Yup. Especially if he is leaning forward toward the pot.

However, single tells are quite often accidental. You need a cluster of two, or more to have substantial meaning. Even then, they are an addendum to betting patterns and playing style. This is why I shy away from the term "tells" and have started using the more generic "live reads". It's more accurate and encompasses all behaviors, past and present.