Quote:
Originally Posted by garicasha
I'm aware of a few pros that have reputations for being extremely skilled at reading other players, like Phil Hellmuth and Daniel Negreanu.
But if I was looking for someone to emulate for being unreadable, who would it be?
The very nature of your question underscores a flaw in your thinking. Being unreadable is not about mannerisms or physical tells, but about playing styles and ranges. Players who are unreadable (for example, like Tom Dwan or Gus Hansen in their prime) are so because they will play unconvetional starting hands in ways difficult to predict.
Emulating a known players style will allow an experienced player to figure you out pretty quickly.
Instead, you should look at it the following way
1. Do I play a straightforward style?
2. Is my range logically constructed?
3. Do I play the same way all the time?
4. Do I react in consistent manner to events (wins, losses, certain game or tournament situations)?
If the answer is yes, then you are readable. Instead, you should be trying to do the following
1. Play a mixed range of value, drawing, and bluff hands
2. Play the hands in your range the same regardless of whether they are value, drawing, or bluff hands (to a point)
3. Vary the way you play hands in your range (but not based on the hand, more based on external events or randomly. For example, 3 bets a certain percentage of hands in your range, flat call a certain percentage, but do not base the action primarily on the hand type)
4. Be aware of how your playing style tends to change based on external events, and compensate (either by not changing style, or 'faking' a change in style to decouple your actions with any predictive tells)
Now, this is all very dangerous, though, because a lot of patterns in poker are there because they are correct plays. Doing something like 3 betting a pure bluff hand just to keep your ranges and actions unreadable is hard to do, but necessary if you truly want to keep from being read.