Reading False Tells

Immediately after the release of my book Read ‘Em and Reap, readers began to ask : “If you give out this information, how will we be able to read false tells accurately anymore since everyone will know what to look for?” Talk about a surprising problem to have! In fact, one reviewer of the book noted that he wished he could have burned all the other copies for this reason. Unfortunately, my research is everywhere, even on iPods, thanks to my recent release with iAmplify.com. So if this knowledge is so wide-spread, should you panic? Is your time of detecting tells finished? Not yet.

As you already know, the interest in deciphering tells, both verbal and nonverbal, is of key interest among those in the poker world. Between magazines, books, podcasts, and message boards, discussion of this topic has become commonplace — which brings to mind a very important question: All things being equal, if two players have the same knowledge about nonverbal tells, how do you know when the tells are true and when they are false?

For those of you who have been reading this column since its BLUFF debut, you know by now that our limbic system is very accurate in responding to the world around us — including our reactions when we see a “rag hand” or “the nuts”! Since the limbic/emotive brain constantly assesses our environment in real time, those emotive reactions (e.g., positive, negative, emphatic, confident) tend to be transmitted instantly, without thought. The beauty of the limbic brain is that the reactions are instantaneous, and that brings us to the first clue to the question: How can we detect false tells? The key is to be observant of the timing of the reaction.

One of the great advantages of watching players, whether on television or at the WSOP Academy, is that I get to see what they hold in their hands. Considering I’m always researching, this is a tremendous asset for me because something as simple as watching TV is now a living laboratory. What I have found in the last four years of looking at the tells of poker players is consistent with what I observed while conducting interviews for the FBI. That is that natural spontaneous reactions, governed by the limbic brain, tend to be more accurate than the reactions or behaviors that take place a few seconds or even a few milliseconds after a stimulus (e.g., seeing their hole card or being asked a probing question) or an event (e.g., some- an image of being unbeatable. On the surface this may look confident raises or I show them a picture). Just as in an interview setting, poker players usually react instantly to what they see or perceive or are thinking, then try to mask it with a behavior that is contradictory. In other words, as the great Mike Caro said many years ago, they act strong when weak and act weak when strong.

Her masking behavior, or false tells, come late, and may catch the less observant opponents.

The time sensitivity of decoding tells applies everywhere, especially during the most important situations. Another behavior I’ve observed occurs immediately after a player moves his last chips into the center of the table. He acts, for lack of a better word, “cocky.” He’s trash talking, moving around in his seat, and trying to portray but, as he’s acting his part, he has also moved slightly away from the table and his thumbs have found their way into his pockets trying to act like peacock. At fi rst it looks like a confident, outgoing display; but when coupled with the thumbs in the pocket (low confidence) we have to do a very quick assessment to determine which tell we should trust.

So here is a general rule that I use: Any time you see confidence displays shown at the same time as displays of weakness or lack of confidence, trust the weaker ones first, because the brain once more is trying to send out a message. Acting tough is not the same as being tough and the brain knows the difference.

In the example above, the woman’s initial confidence response (steeple) is masked by a subsequent low confidence display (hand rubbing). What I am talking about now is when there are two simultaneous displays of both comfort or confidence and discomfort or lack of confidence. When both present at the same time, go with the low confidence discomfort display as the most accurate.

Here is another action that is often misinterpreted: the staredown. Another WSOP Academy instructor and a great ambassador of poker, Greg Raymer, uses this trick all the time with his Fossilman sunglasses. If he has a weak or marginal hand, he knows that his staring down intimidates and makes him appear to be strong. And folks, it is intimidating, especially if you are sitting with him at the table. I’m not saying that Greg only uses this when he has a weak hand, as his actions at the table are generally robotic; but I’m using him as an example in this situation. Many players use this tactic and people assume that their opponent must be strong due to this very intimidating staring or gaze behavior. Unfortunately, it is most likely not the case. Never ever assume that someone staring or glaring at you has the nuts. Staring is not conclusive of strength, it is only a ploy. The reason staring is associated with strength is that long aggressive gazes are, by social convention, the prevue of those in authority (parents, teachers, doctors, bosses) or social predators, and that is why we assume they are strong, but the behavior is no guarantee.

Since staring does intimidate, make sure that you are looking at your opponents while involved in a hand. Each time a player checks his cards in correlation to making a key decision, you should be watching. I’ve noticed that in the moments before an all-in decision, the checking of the cards may tell all. If a player suddenly looks at his cards and exhales through closed lips or furrows his forehead, then acts as though he is strong or even goes all in, I would have my doubts. That original negative reaction is more accurate than what

Years ago, Annie Duke, a fantastic teacher as well as a great player, told me that overacting (going Hollywood) is one of the trademark features of young inexperienced players who are so eager to fake strong or weak that they reek of B movie quality. We want to look for the “showboater” or the person who is feigning disinterest, as well as the more subtle behaviors. Watch, for example, the dean of poker Doyle Brunson. I won’t give away all his tells, but notice how he uses time to make a decision before he bets when he is strong. He looks like he is foundering as he takes his time. He has learned that by delaying his action, he will come across as indecisive or weak. Time delays in the absence of other behaviors such as temple rubbing, furrowed forehead, squinting, face or neck massaging (all signs of weakness or insecurity) should not lead you to conclude that they are weak. Time is a tool and it can be used to deceive you absent other behaviors.

Deciphering false tells is about observation and assessment in context. You have to follow the players, the game, the board, and the patterns to make a decision as to whether or not they are bluffing. I see too many players, with their own good money on the table, looking up at the television monitors to watch the latest football highlights. That is just simply wrong. Observation is hard work and it’s not an occasional chore to be attempted at the poker table. It needs to go on at all times.

The best advice I can give you is to teach yourself to read tells well and accurately in real time. Decipher them as they occur, without hesitation. If you are good at making sense of tells, you will not overanalyze what you see. Put the situation in context. Then ask yourself: What was the first tell that I saw and what was it in relation to (e.g., the hole cards, the flop, the turn, the river, the call)? Also, learn to keep your eye where it should be. I see too many players still focused on the person who is looking at his cards at his turn. That’s okay, but you also need to keep an eye on who is affected by that player’s actions (call or raise). You will be amazed to see the immediate cringes or signs of elation of players who are still in the hand.

I am not going to sugarcoat it: Studying nonverbals is hard work but not impossible work. At first it will tax you, but in time it will come naturally. One recommendation I would make, if you are serious about poker, is to take one hour a week, perhaps right before you sit down to play at a casino, to watch players without playing yourself. Learn to pick up their behaviors. Soon you will find how quickly you develop your observation skills. They are a skill, and they are perishable, so exercise your observation skills often and don’t just save them for the poker room; practice them every day. In the end, comes after a few seconds of introspection and thought. your game will improve and your skills will be sharpened.