Navarro Vision
If you’ve watched any TV lately on Fox you’ve probably noticed the ads for their new show Lie to Me, which portrays a division of government that specializes in reading nonverbals. Sounds familiar, huh?
Since I’m sure the producers did their research, this show might allow you to get a feel for what one of these government offi cials are looking at and thinking during an interrogation. After a few years of these columns, you know what I’ve looked for in suspects, but now, it’s time to get inside my head.
Introducing: “Navarro Vision”. In my next series of columns I’ll take a look at some very notable hands played out on TV. From my “lab” in front of the television, I’ll explain what I’ve noticed from each player. Now, we know that poker on TV can be highly edited, so my interpretations will be based on exactly what is depicted in action.
The fi rst hand I’ll discuss is perhaps the hand that started it all. Norman Chad called it the “bluff of the century,” and it might have just started the poker boom single-handedly. Of course it is the Chris Moneymaker versus Sammy Farha hand when they are heads-up in the 2003 Main Event for the title. If you’d like to rewatch the hand, check out YouTube.
Just as some background, herefs how the hand played out. Moneymaker had Ks 7h and Farha had Qs 9h. The fl op came 9s 2d 6s and both players checked. The turn was the 8s. Farha led out for $300,000 and Moneymaker raised to $800,000. Farha called and the river brought the 3h. Moneymaker moved all in and Farha reluctantly folded.
Now, for Navarro Vision. Moneymaker was a cipher to Farha. The seasoned veteran had never seen him before so he did not know what to make of his opponent. It is easier to read someone you are familiar with (duuuuuuh!) than a total stranger, especially one who, with poise, was not intimidated by Farha. This is the premier event of the year and the eyes of the poker world were on these two players. That said, the majority of those eyes were on Farha, who was defending not just his hand but his reputation as a professional.
What stands out is that Farha was concentrating on betting patterns and not reading Moneymaker, who was rubbing his face – a sign of discomfort. Moneymaker had nothing but king-high and he had to come across as strong. Farha, by canting his head and deliberating, was transmitting what I often talk about: that he thought he was weak or marginal in comparison to his opponent. Even though he had the best hand – top pair of nines – it didn’t matter. The only thing that mattered was what he thought.
As he looked across at Moneymaker, Farha progressively showed how weak he thought his hand was. He withdrew from the table (distancing), he tucked his chin in (lacking confi dence), he ventilated his neck (stress), and tucked his thumbs in his waistband (insecurity). This was encouragement to Moneymaker, as if saying, “Whatever you are doing, it is working and I feel weak.”
Moneymaker displayed throughout the hand. When Farha called Moneymaker’s raise after the turn, at that very moment, Moneymaker swallowed hard, pursed his lips slightly, and, with fi ngers intertwined, wrung his hands. These are all signs of stress and a need to pacify. For whatever reason, Farha overlooked this valuable information and merely acted on the river based on the betting pattern – as if that were the only thing at issue. Moneymaker was the chip leader so he could raise to $800,000 on a semi-bluff in an attempt to win the pot, but Farha viewed this as a strong reraise and that information was stuck in his head throughout the rest of the hand.
All of this criticism stated, it must also be understood that both players have an excuse to miss these nonverbals. Whenever you are playing, it is almost easier to read your opponents when there are more players left. When heads-up play begins, especially on this stage, there is too much intrusive observation and it makes reading tells more diffi cult. Too many external factors are affecting the players at this time.
In the end, the bluff of the century worked. Moneymaker looked strong and, in a way, Farha assisted in that by transmitting a nonverbal message though his tells: “I think I am weak.” As is often said in show business, the audience makes the performance. As we look back on the event that got so many people excited about poker, we have to take away a lesson or two.
Experience can help with the familiar, but it can fall apart when confronted by the new. Farha had not played with Moneymaker before and most likely did not know his individual tells. Farha fed the theatrical performance by reinforcing Moneymaker’s acting which showed him to be rock solid and strong. Farha’s tells, indicative of indecision and weakness, were exactly what Moneymaker wanted to see and strengthened his confi dence that he would take down the hand.
As a professional Farha understood what Moneymaker was trying to represent with his betting pattern, but he never looked at Moneymaker’s response and tells to his reraising. If he had, he would have seen that Moneymaker was not jubilant to see more chips in the pot, but rather concerned.
What is interesting is that this entire situation could have all been avoided by Farha if he had been focused on the subtleties of the game and not the obvious. Moneymaker looked strong, but only when settled into his stoic position – while looking at cards and reacting to Farha, he actually was transmitting a look of unease.
It has been said that all that is past is prologue. I wonder if both of these players have gone back and looked at the game fi lm, as football players do, and said, “Aha! Here’s where I made my mistakes.” I doubt many poker players have gone to this length to improve their games, but if you can learn so much from one single hand, imagine how much you can improve your game with a tape of a full session.
