Re: Routine for looking at your cards?

[Paul Phillips]

In article <3f2eeaaf$0$15257$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>,
Brian C. <anonymous@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I was wondering if you should have a routine for looking at your hole
>cards...like look at them for 3 seconds and then make your play. Just
>thought if you did that it would make it harder for someone to tell if you
>were strong or weak. Thanks for any info.

Yes, this is wise. I think the best approach is to wait until it's
your action to look at your cards, and then to look at them in a quick
snap regardless of what they are. If it's an obvious fold, go ahead
and chuck it, but in every other case wait as close to a fixed amount
of time as you can, then act. That fixed amount of time has to be
long enough to give you genuine thinking time when the occasion requires
it, so these days I try to wait about ten seconds.

One of the most reliable tells some people have in no-limit is that
if they raise quickly after looking at their hand, they cannot take any
heat, but a more considered raise means a real hand. Don't be one of
those people. Also, and this one is less common, when someone looks at
their starting cards for noticeably longer than usual, it typically
means they don't have much. It's rare to find people who stare at aces.

--
Paul Phillips | It's better to pump that bilge like mad than
Analgesic | craft sea donkeys.
Empiricist | -- wisdom from a puzzle pirate
i pull his palp! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------

[Scott N]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:05:01 GMT, Paul Phillips wrote:
..
>
> Yes, this is wise. I think the best approach is to wait until it's
> your action to look at your cards, and then to look at them in a quick
> snap regardless of what they are. If it's an obvious fold, go ahead
> and chuck it, but in every other case wait as close to a fixed amount
> of time as you can, then act. That fixed amount of time has to be
> long enough to give you genuine thinking time when the occasion requires
> it, so these days I try to wait about ten seconds.


I think that the above approach is cliche and not the best although SO many
use it (Or poorly attempt to try). Hear me out:

It is very difficult to avoid giving off "tells" while looking at your hand
with 9 others staring at you while you check your cards and also trying to
form proper strategy of those cards based on what has transpired thus far in
relation to your position. This is ALOT of info to integrate in that fixed
time and even if long enough, could work against some trying to retain their
enthusiasm when they look down and see pocket Aces. A fake wait knowing
automatically you're gonna raise is easy to detect in many. Along with the
little nuiances most do based on their holecards. Like chip on the ones you
are going to play/that are strong (Howard), tucking them under stack of
chips when strong, etc. I think the look at cards when it is your turn and
wait a fixed time to move is best reserved for very seasoned veterans.
Veterans that have mechanically systemized the process. Possibly even on
video?

What I do and what *I* think is the best is look at your cards with a quick
snap the second you receive both of them. And that is it. Don't tuck, don't
put chip on to rotect, etc. Just snap, look, remember and let go. You get
your first one, wait for the second one and then quickly look at them. This
then allows you to watch the others actions with more detail knowing you
have taken care of looking at yours already. Some take too much time looking
at their cards when they look at them right when they get them. By this,
they waste valuable time and I have seen some players even miss upto two or
three players that have looked at their cards already. Remember, Quick. Now
sit in standard position and watch the rest of table. At each player, equate
his actions with your two cards. Don't telegraph until it gets to you. Sit
there and when the player ahead of you finishes his move, you go RIGHT into
yours. Players will have hard time finding tells on you. And if they want to
watch you knowing you look at cards early, they miss out on rest of table.

Again, there is NO best way for anyone other than what works best for YOU. I
like my way, but have seen many systemize their wait until their turn
approach. But just my advice.


Scott N

[Scott N]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 05:34:21 GMT, Paul Phillips wrote:

> In article <5ewtsan69sz0$.1tpaqmk3h5iz7.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Scott N <bigslick@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>Don't telegraph until it gets to you.
>
> I guarantee you're telegraphing.
>
> Nobody can watch their opponents with the same interest every time they
> have 72o as they can when they have AA. I do not believe it is possible.
> If you can summon that kind of believable fake interest on every single
> hand at the poker table, even when you know you're certain to fold when
> it's your action, then your talents are going to waste.

Now are we talking during Tournaments, Live or Both?

>
> Maybe, maybe if you only played very brief sessions, but tournaments do
> not afford you this luxury.
>

Ohh.
Actually, I am confused here. Tournaments AFFORD that luxury more than Live
I would say. No? Except for maybe the upper elite "Championship" type ones
where play is very long and over days. Most Tournaments are one day with
rapid table breaks anyways. Live sessions could be over several hundred
hours with the same group of people day-in and day-out.


>>Again, there is NO best way for anyone other than what works best for YOU. I
>>like my way, but have seen many systemize their wait until their turn
>>approach.
>
> I believe that people are far more threatened by someone who has just now
> looked at his cards, and then decides to play even facing action in front,
> than they are by someone who has had time to work up their nerve. Actually
> I'm completely 100% convinced of this, based on spending a huge chunk of my
> poker life looking at cards immediately, and then later switching to
> just-in-time card looking.


I am open to suggestion and after absorbing your reply I now have decided to
devote some time into just-in-time looking. From now on, for a while, I will
be a just-in-time looker. This way, I will be able to judge for myself what
is best for me and what I believe I can pull off just as you have.

But for the record, I don't think it is about looking "threatening". The
projection of trying to look intimidating by emulating what you've seen big
names on TV do is akin to learning to shuffle chips so you can project your
experience at the table within a few seconds of sitting down.

But I do like your idea about "someone who has had time to work up his
nerves". This is probably true and now that I think about it, is probably
why the majority of inexperienced or unsophisticated players do it/ They
feel more comfortable with the time allowed of knowing their hands before it
gets to them, then to be scrutinized while formulating their plan of action.

Interesting but probably moot?

Scott N

[Newgca]

>What I do and what *I* think is the best is look at your cards with a quick
>snap the second you receive both of them. And that is it. Don't tuck, don't
>put chip on to rotect, etc. Just snap, look, remember and let go.

This is correct. Look as quickly as possible and then watch the other players.

>You get
>your first one, wait for the second one and then quickly look at them.

Look at them as quickly as you get them, one at a time. By far the best way.
Let's you watch the action and keeps you sharp watching the others.

Russ Georgiev

[Paul Phillips]

In article <20030805035352.00793.00000910@mb-m25.aol.com>,
Newgca <newgca@aol.com> wrote:
>Look at them as quickly as you get them, one at a time. By far the best way.
>Let's you watch the action and keeps you sharp watching the others.

That's strong. The number of non-newbies I know who habitually look at
their cards one at a time as they arrive is... let's see, I don't want to
mess this count up... um, carry the one... ok! Zero.

So either russ here is so far ahead of the field that EVERYONE else gets
this one wrong, or you may want to keep a salt shaker handy when you're
reading his posts (not to mention a sturdy shovel.)

--
Paul Phillips | The 'Take Back the Night' rally will be held at
Stickler | noon today.
Empiricist | -- unknown reporter
slap pi uphill! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------

[Eric Lindholm]

> The number of non-newbies I know who habitually look at
> their cards one at a time as they arrive is...

For what it's worth, I've seen some WPT players do this. I couldn't tell
whether it was habitual, and I didn't see it among any of the big-name
players I recognize.

I -- not that I know anything, but what the hey -- definitely advocate
waiting until one's turn before looking. But this is partly because I tend
to play at low limits, with a lot of people who are extremely equivocal
about their actions. They pick up some chips, put them just in front of
their cards so you can't tell if it's a bet or not, pause for a bite to eat,
watch the game, wait for the next player to give up and call, and then
finally announce a raise. (In the L.A. clubs, you can forget about the
dealers correcting this kind of behavior.) So I want to make sure that it
really _is_ my action before possibly giving anything away about my hand.
Also, if you look as soon as you have both cards, someone in early position
may be acting right as you look, so you won't get to see how he does it.

I certainly wouldn't recommend squeezing the two cards out, as a surprising
number of pros do (judging by WSOP and WPT telecasts). It seems that it
would be very hard to avoid tells based on how long you pause before
revealing your second card. I think I've already detected some patterns
from some WSOP players, but I need some more data....

And by the way, sometimes I _will_ look a long time at AA, while I'm
thinking, "Oh great, I wonder how much money I'm going to lose with these."

[Bing]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 05:34:21 GMT, Paul Phillips <rgp-10@improving.org>
wrote:

> I guarantee you're telegraphing.
>
> Nobody can watch their opponents with the same interest every time they
> have 72o as they can when they have AA. I do not believe it is possible.

That's probably somewhat true. But, for most people that
telegraph, they only give off the "will fold" or "won't
fold" message. If they are going to fold, it really doesn't
matter whether they have 72o, K7o, or T2s--a fold is a fold.

Similarly, a non-fold is a non-fold. I'm sure that Scott
watches the opponents with the same interest when he has
AA as when he has QTs. If he's gonna play this hand, he's
gonna watch closely.

At least, that's the case for me. I also look at my cards
with a quick snap, put a chip holder on them, absent-mindedly
pick up a stack of 10-12 chips, and watch the betting action.
I do this the same way whether I am going to fold or raise.

I have no doubt that I watch others closer when I plan on
playing. But, I figure a really observant player would not
get anything more than a "fold" or "no fold" signal from
me. I doubt they'd get an idea of the relative strength of
my no-fold hands.

> I believe that people are far more threatened by someone who has just now
> looked at his cards, and then decides to play even facing action in front,
> than they are by someone who has had time to work up their nerve.

Possibly. But I do think that you probably lose more from having
everyone watch you as you look at your cards.

-- Bing Monopoly Expansion Set
Visit us at http://www.paxentertainment.com

[steve]

I also do the quick snap, and when i am going to play i look back at
them (always!) if i'm folding i muck em. i find the players i want the
info from are the ones to act behind me, am i going to get raised are
they folding, these are the players i pay the most attention too when
looking for telegraphs.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RGP ACCESS at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com

[Gary Carson]

>>
>> Similarly, a non-fold is a non-fold. I'm sure that Scott
>> watches the opponents with the same interest when he has
>> AA as when he has QTs. If he's gonna play this hand, he's
>> gonna watch closely.

If I have 72o I'm not going to play. If I have AA I'm going to play.
If I have QTs I don't know yet.

I'm more likely to be as inattentive with AA as I am with 72o than I
am be as attentive with AA as I am with QTs.



Gary Carson

[Bing]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 00:22:15 GMT, garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu
(Gary Carson) wrote:

> If I have 72o I'm not going to play. If I have AA I'm going to play.
> If I have QTs I don't know yet.

> I'm more likely to be as inattentive with AA as I am with 72o than I
> am be as attentive with AA as I am with QTs.

For your sake, I hope that's not true at all. Certainly if you
have AA you are going to be watching everyone very closely.
You should very much like to know who's got KK and who has JTs.

-- Bing Monopoly Expansion Set
Visit us at http://www.paxentertainment.com