I have a few questions for B&M players regarding physical tells--really just a few basics, as I'm coming from online play but am starting to work on this aspect, too.

First, a rather rudimentary aspect: As I recall, Cloutier says that he looks at his own cards really quickly so that he can then study everyone else. I find that I generally can't do that in time. So, what I have been doing is basically just pulling my cards to the edge of the table so that they're READY to be looked at, but just looking at everyone else until it comes to me. At this stage, all I'm really trying to do is determine who's getting ready to fold, raise or limp. And I feel like there's certainly no way for anyone to get a tell on me because I don't even know what I've got until it comes to me--and I can also make a very snappy decision upon seeing my cards almost all the time, so I don't delay the game (only thing to really think about is quantity of raise if it happens to be a raising hand). Sounds reasonable? Other suggestions?

I'm pretty happy with that method on seeing my cards and observing, but, with regard to my second question, I really just don't know. This one essentially involves how to act when I'm in a hand, whether as caller, bettor, or whatever. As beginner to B&M, I was initially just automatically rather nervous upon any action except folding, but now I'm getting a lot more relaxed--although I did notice some internal nervousness (presumably also observable to others) when I made a re-raise with AA last night. Anyhow, what I had been trying to do as to my own "poker face" was to just kind of stare blankly into space or at the table, wherever (as one frequently observes in many very good players).

What I'm wondering, however, is whether it's not better yet to scrutinize one's opponent--not exactly a challenging "looking him in the eye" but more studying what he's doing without really caring one way or the other. Actually, watching Stu Ungar, he seems often to be doing something like this... doesn't seem very worried about what he himself is conveying but is rather always studying his opponent. I kind of like this attitude and feel like it might have several advantages: First, you are indeed gaining info about your opponent during this "waiting period." And, secondly, you're actually taking your mind off of your own holdings for the moment. Anyhow, it seems to me that this attitude is a little more aggressive psychologically in that it is more likely to get your opponent worried about his own possible mistakes/tells--putting things on one's opponents' minds that make them more inclined to make mistakes.

One question I have, though, is whether anyone knows whether you're more or less likely to get called if you just continue to observe rather than going into "blank stare" mode. I guess the observation is somewhat irrelevant for the further course of the current hand if it's an all-in, but, even there, I think you can possibly get a better feel for reading each opponent. And, by the way, just to characterize this "look" a little better: I'm not talking about a kind of challenging "look the guy squarely in the eye." More of a look like I'm just still studying the opponent to see what he's telling me (which is in fact what I'm trying to do)--basically a look that says "I really don't care what you do, but I'm curious as to what it's going to be."

Anyhow, I guess what I'm striving for here is to stay as relaxed as possible, show that I'm thinking about my bet (I do often have to kind of add up what's in the pot anyway, consider the board, strength of my hand, etc.) and that I'm studying my opponent. And I figure whatever nervousness is still there is at minimum consistent. And I also think that whatever one does before and after betting needs to be as consistent as possible--whether it be "blank stare" or "studying the opponent(s)."

Any comments from those more experienced in B&M games?

And a third, related issue: Anyone have a "best general answer" to the typical question of "Do you have a set?" or "Did you make the flush?" or "So you have aces?" Sometimes I've gone with "I have 72o, it's the only hand I play," but I actually don't like that entirely as generic answer. I'm really thinking just the brief "maybe" is the best way to go. That at least says absolutely nothing. One can also just be silent, of course, but that's in practice a lot harder to do if you don't go into "blank stare" mode. So, a neutral "maybe" seems to me to defuse this situation about as well as anything I can think of. Another option which seems about the same: "I can't remember."

Any suggestions or comments?

Cool! Thanks!

Actually, I was starting a bit with your idea of looking at how players react to the flop (particularly easy when you're not even in the hand), but wasn't really getting much out of them and wasn't doing it consistently yet. I definitely think all of this takes practice.

As to the "stare," you're probably also right. I've even noticed that when I start examining people PF (without knowing myself whether I'm even going to play the hand), they do get a little nervous. But I think one can also pull it off in a number of ways. You can convey with your look that you're actually worried about your hand--and, in fact, against one of the calling stations at my usual table, I often am, because he'll keep some pretty strange hands even to raises and follow the draw to the river. It's obviously quite important to figure out what draw he's on, though (usually the flush, but he sometimes also has a straight draw, too).

I'll have to work on this a bit. What for me is a bit distracting is to play this act of pretending to be confident or not, although I've seen a few of the better players pull of some Academy Award material. At the same time, it was so obvious to me that their act of weakness meant that they had a monster that I hesitate to even get involved in that stuff--although I can see its merits.

Precisely because the better players are going to notice, I'd really like to try to put on exactly the same act regardless of quality of my hand. And I think that's working fairly well, at least from the feedback I'm getting. Basically, the better players tell me that when I bet like this, they know I have this that or the other. But I'm pretty sure that until now, all they really have to go on is how I bet.

I also REALLY like the chip trick idea, although not completely sure I could pull something like that off. I do try to keep things relaxed and humorous, though, particularly now that I'm getting more in the groove of this thing.

Let's continue the exchange of ideas here! Very interesting remarks so far. The whole "personal interaction" part of B&M really does make it a lot more fun, and adds a very interesting new dimension to the game.

One quick thing on seat selection. When given the chance, I always select seat 2/3 or 8/9. These seats allow you to observe the entire table without needing to have your head on a swivle trying to watch everyone. This allows you to do like MVP said, and seem to be goofing off and watching TV, but really you can see everyone without much obvious effort. Seats 4-7 you won't pick up much because you can only observe half the table at once. Seat 1 and 10 or ok, but you can never see 9/10 or 1/2 very well. I know I always read that you want to sit in certain seats based on how loose or tight opponents are. But generally, I don't figure this out until AFTER I sit and many times. Not to mention, at least where I play, 90% of the players are way too lose anyway so you'll always have them to your right AND left. Anyway, just my thoughts.

Wow, this thread has turned out great--hadn't checked back in a couple of days and was happy to see the multitude of very helpful remarks!

Actually, I just finished looking back at a little Caro, and digital's remarks reminded me of how important that stuff is. I'm going to try to go through the whole book in detail, and I also like the suggestion of focussing on a couple of players to begin with. There are a lot of aspects to it.

Oh, and one thing on my "stare" thing, that I probably shouldn't really call a stare: It's NOT trying to stare them down but more looking at what they're doing. I typically am not looking them in the eye but more glancing around at their whole behavior. I don't think this appears really threatening. Actually, I think it relaxes them a fair amount as it's really fairly nonchalant.

One other Caro-ism which I think might have some potential: While most people ask things like "Do you have a set?" or stuff like that, Caro notes that players aren't even worried when they have the nuts. Those who are completely unconcerned about what happens actually will typically have the nuts (was talking with a guy last night about some similar situations in a slightly different context). So, a couple of corollaries: First, if they're even asking the question, they're vulnerable. Second, it might be interesting to come up with some completely irrelevant questions, like "How much rain did you get when that storm came through yesterday?" or whatever. Anyhow, Caro notes that players with extremely strong hands are unlikely to be worried and will give completely coherent answers, whereas those who have vulnerable hands are likely to give a confused answer, if any. This is certainly exploitable.

I guess I'll conclude this one with about $100 that I think I missed last night on a river bet due to "tell insensitivity." Ok, I have red KK and raise to something like $20 on the button (there were only about 3 limpers), getting 2 callers. Flop comes KQ5 rainbow, MP bets $10 into me, other MP calls, and I raise to $60. First limper calls (he had actually just stung me pretty bad a few hands before where I had 2 pair where he had flopped the nut straight). Turn is a 9, he checks, and I bet something like $100.

Here's the tell part of it: While I'm obviously now vulnerable to JT, this guy hesitated a very long time before calling. Looked like he might raise, then not, but he wasn't completely confident in his hand. I think JT would have been much more relaxed here. Anyhow, river is a blank, and, due to JT, I check it (had the board paired, I was ready to move in a lot of chips), and he turns over K9 for a losing 2 pair. I think this was a really good case where more attention to behavior could have given me a nice river bet--probably with a call. But I do have to be able to eliminate JT before making it.

Well, good Lord, MV, he'll play K9o to a raise!!! Why on earth wouldn't he play JT??

Also, I think one can distinguish acts from non-acts (again, Caro). I definitely can with most of the players, actually. This guy wasn't saying a word. He was just really nervous.

You're quite right with the river situation, which is where it often occurs, but I've also seen it on the turn and on the flop, where you can get some equity out of it.

I've also noticed that the better players in my own game recognize that people who tell you things about their hands are actually usually honest about it (and recognize who at the table isn't).

Depending on your game and the perceptiveness of your opponents, I'd also be somewhat cautious about doing the chip-trick thing too often or saying "You have a set." The perceptive people in the game (if there are any, and at least in my game, there definitely are some) will catch on to it. This of course also depends on how frequently you're up against the same players, though, as well. I do think the goof-ball act has a lot of potential, even though it's not the poker persona I'm trying to cultivate. But I'd be very cautious about doing anything consistently that shows strength and or weakness (for me, I'm really working on just doing pretty much exactly the same thing every time I'm in a hand).

Opponents have come out several times against me with "He has QQ" or such after I raise, or "It must be AK" again. Just calculating in my head, I think they've been wrong about 75% of the time. But sometimes the board develops in such a way that I can use this information for profit. They really are putting me on that hand, and it gives me two opportunities to win: 1) The hand they put me on is very strong on the given board, 2) My real hand is very strong on the given board.

I actually think it's a mistake to say anything about one's own hand or to speculate about the hand of your opponent openly. If you talk during the hand, I think it's a lot better not to talk about hands at all but just to make some kind of irrelevant conversation (which also makes for a much more pleasant atmosphere as added bonus) or talk about past hands or the tournament that's coming up, whatever. I do think that the way in which people react to that kind of conversation can give you some valuable information about hand strength.

My current experiences on "examining the opponent": I'm really not trying to get a call or trying to elicit anything. Generally, I really don't care much whether I get a caller or not. If I do, I'm still fairly happy with my bet (usually), and, if I don't, I win the hand 100%. I'm just striving to do the same thing every time and, with observation vs. staring off into space, I just feel like I get more information. I just have trouble BEING observant without APPEARING to be observant.

Again, a couple of examples: First, an older regular who flopped a straight flush not too long ago. He put on a fairly calm weakness act the whole way through that was actually pretty good. At the time, I only thought he MIGHT have a monster on the basis of his acting. And he successfully got callers with all his chips in the middle by the river. But the act wasn't very big. (this was a hand I wasn't in)

Second, a guy who thinks he's really great about deception who did a whole routine about "I don't think you have the flush" and all that. I KNEW he had a monster (again, I wasn't in this hand), and, sure enough, he turns over a boat at showdown.

A third one, where the actors set themselves up perfectly (a hand I was in): Same guy who thinks he's such a great actor (and indeed is one of the better players in the game) has been talking about how much he loves raising me and all this kind of stuff (he had in fact only had the guts to do it once before this and simply got me to lay down an unimproved AK). Well, I'm sitting on TT in SB, and we're down to about 7 players, all of whom are in the hand. I was actually thinking of raising here, but the table saw me thinking and was assuming I was about to fold. So, they came with, "Oh, come one, we've got a family pot here." So, I thought I'd just complete with some pretty decent chances due to the deception they'd already given me.

Well, delightfully, the flop comes QT3. So, I just bet it out fairly calmly. Now, one guy says jokingly, "Damn, why did you have to play your SB there?" And, even better, Mr. Deception raises me. Well, since he'd been talking so much about this, which happened fairly slowly, I went with "Are you really raising me?" And he says something like, "Well, the chips are out there, so I guess I am." So, I just say, "All-in" (having him covered). He calls with Q3 and loses his stack. Now, he might have called anyway with that hand, but I actually doubt it if he hadn't set himself up so nicely with the chit-chat. Basically, he thought he had set me up to move in with something like AQ or KQ and had me beat. Under purely normal circumstances, I think he would have raised but not called my all-in.

Ais... I understand your points... Honestly, when I'm playing, I just try to come off with the "bored and don't really care what happens" attitude more than the "goofball" one... I just happen to be a goofball, so that may come off sometimes...

Do you play at the same game, against the same people, all the time...? I agree that if you're viewed as tight, you can exploit that and bluff a little w/ worse cards, and can be a little more hidden when you flop some weird 2pr or trips... But, isn't it a BIGGER advantage when nobody knows who you are, don't have a read, and really don't see much past their own cards, like most of the places I've played...?