@Garry_Lucas Overbet shoving post-flop. Bluff, weak showdown value or utter strength?

@Donnie_Peters How much weight does Zach give to timing tells in online poker? How relevant are poker tells these days? New players might argue not at all, whereas old players might disagree. Does a tell ever differ depending on game? For example, garnering one interpretation for hold'em but another for stud.

@DocOber Is an opponent betting or checking really fast a tell for either strength or weakness?

Thanks in advance for addressing these Zach!

Adam

@Garry_Lucas is a great UK/IRL grinder to follow, playing low/small stakes for a living #justsaying

I don't really have much insight into this one, sorry. Seems like there are so many potential factors here, it'd be hard to give any good ideas about it. Some players like to shove with draws. Some like to overbet or shove when they have a vulnerable hand like bottom 2 pair, or a set on a draw-heavy board, just because they want to end the hand and not face any tough decisions later. I think there are a lot of factors and I don't really have much general info on it, sorry.

When I was logging a lot of televised poker footage, I was keeping track of large overbets and underbets in my database for a while. Would be interesting to go back and see if there was anything interesting there.

I honestly don't pretend to know much about behaviors in online poker. But I think that the most relevant bet-timing tells will still apply. The two most relevant timing behaviors to me are immediate calls and immediate bets. Online, these are the only kinds of bet-timing tells that can't be influenced by other factors (using the bathroom, playing other tables, etc.) When someone does something immediately or quickly, and they don't usually act that quickly, there is likely to be information there.

Immediate calls are much more meaningful than immediate bets. Immediate calls will tend to be weaker hands or draws, just because with stronger hands most players want to think about the situation a bit even if they decide to call. Players with strong hands don't want to lose a chance to maximize value, so they will tend to be more thoughtful.

Against aggressive players, immediate calls can make strong draws on certain boards very unlikely. For example, if an opponent calls immediately on a flop of 9h 8c 2h, it's very unlikely that the player has strong hearts or TJ. With both of those hands, most players who are somewhat capable and aggressive will tend to at least consider a raise, even if they end up calling.

Quick, significant bets are polarizing. And because 1) players will tend to think more with strong hands, in order to optimize value, and 2) players with strong hands tend to want to imply they have some sort of tough decision, immediate large bets will tend towards bluffs. This is not a strong general tendency, and I'm not advocating acting on it with no other information. But it's something to look for from specific players. Does a player tend to act more quickly when bluffing than when value-betting strong hands?

For decent online players, I don't think these will be large factors. As with live poker, these will be mostly useful versus not-very-good competition. But I will say I still see a lot of decent live players have these patterns, so they are worth looking for. Also, online players tend to act pretty fast in most situations, so I'm not sure how often these would come into play.

I don't really know much about other games honestly. Mainly have concentrated on Hold'em. I like 7-stud, but haven't played it in a long time. I think there are definitely different tells in different games. For example, in 7-stud and draw games, there are more possible tells related to looking at your hole cards (for example, putting them down quickly when someone's improved or staring at them when they haven't improved).

I don't think anyone would argue that tells don't play any role. There are plenty of strong online players, but I tend to think most of them have probably realized there are edges to be gained by paying attention to behavior. Though yeah, for sure tells and reads are not nearly put on a false pedestal as they used to be. But I think most people recognize they can add a boost to win rates while not being super-important.

I talked about some immediate betting factors in a post above.

Checking very fast is only meaningful in those specific situations where you are confident a person wouldn't normally be checking fast. I've found quick checks to be most meaningful when done by players who were the aggressors on the last street.

For example, it's heads-up and the pre-flop raiser checks back the flop immediately on a As 9c 2h board. What can we say about this? The one thing I believe we can say is that the player will usually have something of value, and his quick check makes complete whiffs unlikely. I would estimate a rough range here (taking into account his immediate check-back) as something like: AA, 99, KK, QQ, and maybe JJ. With all other hands (top pairs, vulnerable pairs, 2 pairs, complete misses) most players will at least consider a bet, even if they decide to check. The reason why I don't go lower than JJ (as a rough cut-off) is just because with that hand and lower, most players will think for a little bit about the wisdom of betting or turning their hand into a bluff/semi-bluff. Not saying this is correct; just my experience as to how players play with weaker pairs on such boards.

With boards that are more draw-heavy, immediate checks from aggressors will tend to make the strongest hands less likely. For example, the pre-flop raiser checking immediately back on a Js Ts 4c flop will tend to make sets and 2-pair very unlikely, as the possible draws would motivate him to think about the situation more.

For non-aggressors checking out of position, I think it's harder to find meaning in their immediate checks, just because it's easily imaginable they'd check with a wide range, and that's what a lot of people do. The one exception is if you have a guy who usually takes his time to check with most hands and then he suddenly checks to the aggressor in the hand quickly. This might be a sign he doesn't want to set up any obstacle to his opponent betting and might have a strong hand. I tend to be encouraged to bluff when opponents take a while to check, so the reverse can sometimes make me less likely to bluff or semi-bluff.

In multi-way pots, I think quick checks can be meaningful, especially from the last-to-act players. When you have three players and the last-to-act player snap-checks, it's pretty reliable they are not very strong and probably don't have a draw either. They're gonna at least think about betting usually, especially in multi-way pots. The chances of someone slowplaying goes down a lot in multi-way pots.

But all-in-all, I think it will mostly come down to player-specific reads you've formed over playing with a player for a few hours and what you think his general tendencies are. And the more experienced players are, the less valuable these kinds of reads are, so it's mostly going to be what you can notice about a player first. I think most of these kinds of small reads are just good for slightly narrowing a player's range, which will occasionally come into play later in a hand. For example, if you've decided that a player who checked back immediately on the flop is unlikely to have a couple certain hands, then that little bit of info may help you decide later that his river betting range is much weaker than it would be otherwise. Or maybe stronger than it would be otherwise.