Read 'Em And Reap

So I finally got around to buying (thank you Amazon.com!) and reading the poker tells book "Read 'Em and Reap", which is sort of co-written by Phil Hellmuth and a well-known FBI interrogator type who teaches the reader all about things like high confidence mannerisms, pacifying behaviors and limbic responses as applied to reading people in live poker games. I actually feel about it very similarly to how I feel about Mike Caro's Big Book of Poker Tells, in that both were very interesting reads and each presents a ton of information that, at least theoretically, should be useable at the poker table by just about everyone. The problem I end up having with even the truly good poker tells books out on the market today is that ultimately I feel like they present tells in a far too recognizable way, making them largely inapplicable in actual practice IMO.

For example, "Read 'Em and Reap" has a great discussion of micro-movements, which the author explains as automatic and fairly immediate responses hardwired into the human brain's limbic systems, which generally cause human beings to flee from bad events, while silmutaneously causing us to physically get closer to good ones. Thus, when the flop is turned up and a player's eyes immediately are averted for a millisecond before returning to the table, this player generally was not helped by the flop. Whereas, the guy who immediately becomes more alert and even starts leaning ever so slightly more forward, towards the middle of the table, is the guy to be afraid of on that flop. This all makes good sense and the discussion of the genesis of this automatic human response is pretty good in the book I think, but ultimately my issue with this -- and with many of the tells touched on specifically in this book as well as Caro's -- is how often do people at the poker table really exhibit this tell? Theoretically it sounds great and all, but does it work more in interrogations because of the pressure situations, or maybe I'm just not seeing as well as I should or something, but I barely ever see this particular tell exhibited in practice, nor do I believe I myself am micro-gazing away from the table every time I see a bad flop. I would tend to put this in the category of very rarely seen, although I do believe in the reliability of this particular tell.

Shortly after reading this particular passage of the book, I was actually at a casino playing in a live poker tournament, and I literally saw this look-away move happen in live practice (but it's probably the only time I've recognized it a great many live sessions). It was early in the Foxwoods $1500 buyin event I played last month, and the player two seats to my left open-raised preflop from middle position, getting called by the calling station in the small blind. The flop came raggy -- 973 or something, no flush or straight draws worth worrying about -- and the initial raiser to my left bet out around 2/3 the size of the pot. The station -- of course -- quickly called. The turn was an offsuit 6, and the guy to my left led out again for around 2/3 the size of the current pot. The small blind hesitated briefly, and then called again. When the river brought a non-threatening Queen, the guy to my left very clearly looked clear to the left side of his vision for a second as soon as the Queen fell, and then he quickly regained his composure and led out again for a nice big bet. The station called him down with pocket Jacks and took the pot, with the initial raiser showing AK. I figured as soon as I saw that look-away that this guy was weak, and I surely knew Mr. Station didn't have it in him to fold to another river bet, and when the guy bet out I knew I would have called him down with a medium pair in that spot. So I have definitely seen this one in practice and I tend to believe it if it is immediate and quick -- as described in the book, this is the way the human limbic system works -- whereas a longer or slower look-away tends to be more likely acting and likely indicative of a stronger rather than weaker hand.

"Read 'Em and Reap" does not spend the long period of time focusing on "weak means strong, and strong means weak" like Mike Caro (absolutely correctly) does, because it's just not quite that kind of book. Instead, the discussion in this book focuses more on physical tells, like the one I mentioned above, although the author covers bodily tells literally from head to toe. Another interesting point made in the book is that the trustworthiness of a particular physical tell generally decreases as you get closer to the head. So, for example, the author argues that foot tells are the most reliable there are. Then he gives examples like if the feet go to a "ready" position, or suddenly start bouncing or are elevated in any way after something happens (the flop falls, a player looks at his hole cards, etc.), the player likely has a good hand. Similarly, if the player makes a bet but then hooks his feet around the legs of his chair, he may be bluffing. After foot tells, the next most reliable body parts are the leg -- bouncing, stretching, etc. -- followed by the hands and the arms. The face, argues the author, is simultaneous the most richly expressive and yet the least reliable part of the body when it comes to trusting in physical tells that you may pick up.

In all, "Read 'Em and Reap" was in my view a pretty interesting book and I'm not unhappy I read it. Whereas Mike Caro focuses mainly on example after example in support of his "Strong means weak, weak means strong" overarching theory of tells, this author's overarching theory is more the hardwiring of the evolved human brain and the many, many things it makes us do when we become either highly confident or very unconfident about something. The examples are robust, and just like Caro they come with specific photo illustrations of each type of movement being discussed, but ultimately I still believe that both books are really of limited actual poker application. I find many of those tells to be fairly reliable ones -- mostly because I believe in the overarching theory of both authors of the two poker tells books I have mentioned in this post -- that most physical tells you see at a poker table are either hardwired autoresponses that are largely involuntary, or acting designed to get you to do exactly what your opponent wants you to do. But in the end, and despite my one example above from Foxwoods, I just don't tend to see these sorts of physical mannerisms nearly so often in actual practice to make it a significant part of what I do when I play live poker. Sure, I get tells all the time whenever I play live poker from everybody around me. But my tells are more of the empathic type I have mentioned here previously -- trying to get in the other person's head, discerning the timing of their bets, the size of their bets, their betting patterns, and their general demeanor during the hand to figure out exactly what they're thinking. And I suspect ultimately this is what most other successful poker players do as well, despite "Read 'Em and Reap" being an enjoyable read.

Just skip every single shaded box where Phil Hellmuth weighs in with a story, each of which is a complete and total waste of time, each its own self-serving made-up brag post. It would be difficult to imagine a bigger horse's ass than the Poker Brat.

Blogger Tournament Nirvana, and Eye Tells

Congratulations to LJ and to Rake Feeder for chopping up the latest Skill Series tournament, this week in Omaha 8 or Better, after Rake Feeder overcame a more than 4-to-1 chip deficit when down to just three players remaining. As I have said about most of the Skill Series tournaments so far, having played in the O8 game last night I will say without hesitation that winning this thing is quite an impressive feat. I was going to write a whole post all about the play last night, but in the end let me just say that never have I seen so many players calling raises -- and even raising themselves -- in O8 with hands like 668J, 7799, and 4567, the exact worst kinds of hands in this game. I got burned by players doing this all night to end with me busting in the middle of the pack -- I shouldn't even have lasted that long but I got lucky a few times when down to a short stack -- but I will say again, somehow making it through this minefield is really something to be proud of in my view. And I will say this -- the crowds in the Skill Series games have been truly awesome. I have never ever been one to count the people in the tournaments we play, and I don't evaluate myself or anyone else or their tournaments by how many people show up in absolute numbers. But, I am thrilled beyond my wildest expectations that we are getting 40-50 players every Tuesday night to come out and play together as a group in some non-holdem games. And part of me really enjoys seeing everyone playing these games in...um....non-traditional ways. Some of those people are actually winning doing it, and others are lasting far and at least making it hard for everyone else to put them on hands. I guess all I'm trying to say is that I could not be happier with how many people are interested in playing something other than holdem on full tilt every Tuesday night, and I already really look forward to the Skill Series as one of my favorite times with my fake internet friends (and haters) each week.

As an aside, this has happened kinda quietly from my perspective, but has anyone noticed how right now seems to me to be the height of blogger private tournaments? Think about this for a minute. There is no BBT going to really create an "artficial", temporary incentive for people to play, and yet just look at the regular crowds we are seeing in what is now 5+ nights a week of blonkaments. I am sure things like the BBT, the big overlay Smokkee has secured for his weekly Tuesday night Bodog tournament and some other interesting developments like knockouts and changes to some non-holdem games all the time have all contributed, but just look at what we are doing together every week now. I've been getting more than 30 people for the MATH on most Mondays. The Skill Series on Tuesday has been drawing close to 50 people a week to play games that many people (clearly) don't even have the first clue how to play. Smokkee has reported a record turnout for the bodonkey now several weeks running, including 37 players last night. On Bodog, easily the worst poker client ever created! That seems crazy to me. Of course on Wednesdays you have the Mookie and his usual crowd of 60-80 people, and again I'm talking without the BBT. The Thursday Riverchasers tournament, which I remember started off as just mostly RC guys and a few friends from the Boathouse, has now become the place to be online on Thursday nights, also bringing in between 50-80 players or more on most nights it runs. And on Fridays of course there is the donkament, which also continues to grow and seems to be pulling in a good 25 or so players every week on a night when most people cooler than me are out partying it up. Then of course there is the monthly Big Game and HORSE deep stack event on Sunday evenings, another hard night to play for many people, and those too tend to draw 20 or more even with no BBT involved, even with the Big Game's lofty $75 pricetag.

Then I think back to just a year ago. I had just started up the Hoy and was getting maybe 15 or so players every week to come out on pokerstars. The WWdN, also on stars, was well beyond its heyday a few years back when I used to play this thing with 120 of my closest friends, and was in fact heading for its demise. The Mookie was there and already doing well, but was probably averaging more like 40 or so players than the nearly twice that we seem to get most Wednesday nights these days. There was no Thursday tournament, there was no bodog tournament and there were really no weekend tournaments to speak of -- no donkament yet, not really a Big Game and that was it. The private blogger tournament as an institution was maybe not dying, but it was past its prime that is for sure. Now just one year later, the blonkaments that existed then have nearly doubled on average, and a bunch of new ones have arisen as well that are every bit as big and as fun and as much looked-forward-to every week as the older ones, even with Wil and his WWdN that really started it all falling by the wayside. And all this proliferation has happened despite what a very small minority of bloggers have complained about as far as people now using the blonkaments as a springboard to post negative comments about people's plays every day in their blogs, insulting people, whatever. Personally, I will always chuckle at the attempts to curb free speech from some people who complain about what others write in their own personal blogs and who claim themselves to be such big proponents of blog-what-you-want, but I guess it is really noteworthy to me and very obvious just now with the bodonkey growing and the Skill Series becoming what it is so quickly, just now much everyone is in to the private tournaments, really more so at this very moment that at any time before. I am thrilled about that and look forward to what the future will bring on that front.

So yeah tonight is the Mookie, 10pm ET on full tilt, password as always for Mookie's events is "vegas1". My prop bet with Mook is still in effect -- three months of Mookie buyins for the winner from the non-winner if either one of us wins the tournament during 2008 -- although with our dual final table performances last week it is probably not likely to happen again for me at least anytime soon. That said, I have been playing awesome in the blonkaments recently, on one of my best stretches since I started playing these things a few years ago in fact, so I guess you never know. Historically I have not gotten the cards or the luck needed to last in the Mookie in particular, but like I said I did final table it last week so who knows what will happen. And be sure to tune in once again to Buddydank Radio, where I understand Don and crew will be taking over once again in what is sure to be another top notch show for the radio program that is at its absolute best ever right now, right along with the blonkaments in general these days.

Before I go today, I wanted to share something I read in my latest poker book that I've just completed this week. The book was called Beyond Tells, by James McKenna, and let me start by saying this book was almost unreadably bad. I hate to say that about any poker book, but when your editing is as bad as this book's was, you really deserve it. And I'm not just talking about your normal poker book fare bad editing -- the Super/System and Phil Hellmuth style writing with the exlamation points and the caps and the bold everywhere. I mean, this book had entire passages -- entire pages even -- totally duplicated from other parts in the book. There would be the same two paragraphs, and I do mean word for word identical, just a page apart from one another. It's the kind of thing that makes you wonder if there even was an editor for this book, because believe me when I say that anybody who actually sat down and read through the book from front to back like I just did would have picked up on this stuff immediately. So that was very, very frustrating, especially since it probably happened literally ten times in the book. But more than that, the substance to this book was just about as flimsy as the editing. It was probably a good 300 pages or so, and yet I don't think there were more than 2 or 3 points in the entire book that are even worth considering let alone worth discussing out loud or here in the blog. It was probably literally the single worst and most worthless poker book I've ever read, and believe me I have read them all.

The one most interesting point that I did take out of Beyond Tells was something that the author says about a tell you can get from most players' eye movements. Basically, McKenna makes the following points:

1. When a player's eyes move up to the right, they are visually constructing.
2. When a player's eyes move up to the left, they are visually remembering.
3. When a player's eyes move down to the right, they are dealing with internal feelings.
4. When a player's eyes move down to the left, they are having an internal conversation.

Now, of course, the subject of what is being constructed, remembered, or discussed or felt internally is still up in the air so it's not like eye movements alone can tell you whether to call or bluff someone during a live poker session, but in general I find this whole line of argument to be very interesting. Basically, all things equal, the author argues that if someone bets the river out of nowhere for example, and then you see their eyes unconsciously move up and to the right while they place this bet, then the chances are that they are bluffing because they are trying to construct an image in their heads of the cards they wish they had and or the hand they wish they had just made. Similarly, the author argues, if someone takes their time before making a call and their eyes are moving down to the left during this time, the chances are they have a so-so drawing hand or some sort of mediocre holding and are genuinely trying to decide whether to call or fold here, as opposed to actually being very strong and just fake-pausing to get you to show some more strength on later streets. If a guy's eyes move up and to the left while he bets out strongly on the flop after raising preflop, argues McKenna, then it is likely that he is accessing his memory banks of how he got you to call his nuts in an earlier situation or perhaps an earlier session. And so on and so forth.

So my question to you all is, is there anything to this eye movement business? The first time I read this, it seemed like a bunch of hooey to me. What do you all think about this? Are eye movements specifically something that you pay attention to when you are playing live poker?