Reading Poker Tells - Poker Tells Training

Examining Poker Behavior

Doug Polk makes big fold versus Hellmuth: a poker tells examination

Posted on by Zachary Elwood — Get a free poker tells course here

Not familiar with my poker tells work? Here’s an introduction.

This will be some thoughts about Hellmuth’s behavior from a much-discussed hand from a March 2021 High Stakes Poker episode, in which Doug Polk and Hellmuth both flopped straights and Polk folded his lower straight to a big reraise shove from Hellmuth.

The tells analysis will use concepts from my book Verbal Poker Tells, which is the book I’m most proud of (read Amazon reviews). If you’re not a big reader, these are also concepts discussed in my video series.

How the hand went down

Here’s the video of this Hellmuth-Polk hand:

A quick rundown of the action:

  • With blinds of $200/$400, Phil Hellmuth raised to $1,100 with Queen-Ten offsuit. James Bord called on the button with 22, and Doug Polk called in the SB with Ten-7 clubs.
  • The flop is Js 9s 8h, so both Hellmuth and Polk flop straights. Doug checks, Hellmuth checks, Bord bets $2K into $3900.
  • Doug raises to $7K. Hellmuth shoves all in for $97,200, so it’s $90,200 for Polk to call.
  • Polk folds his straight.

First, we should note that Doug Polk is not a big proponent or user of poker tells. (I actually wrote a piece for Polk’s site Upswing Poker where I examined some critical things Doug has said about poker tells) I do think Doug may occasionally make use of some tells and that his respect for tells has increased over the years, but mostly I think he doesn’t use behavior much in his decisions.

So all that is to say I believe in this hand, Polk’s decision was based primarily on non-tells strategy and information (e.g., knowing what kind of player Hellmuth is, asking what kind of hand Hellmuth would check flop and then shove with, etc.)

All that said, I do think there are some interesting aspects of Hellmuth’s speech in this hand that do make him having a strong hand more likely, and I do think it’s possible for someone to have used that information to help make a fold in this spot if they were on the fence, as Doug seemed to be here.

Most important behavior: Weak-hand statements

One of the most important categories of verbal poker tells are what I call “weak-hand statements.” Their practical usefulness can be summarized as “players who don’t want calls will be unlikely to verbally weaken their hand strength.”

This may seem pretty simple and intuitive but, if you aren’t used to listening for it, it crops up a lot more than you’d think. And also, it can show up in various indirect and less obvious ways, so it pays to try finding them.

Hellmuth had a few weak-hand statements that are pretty textbook.
After Polk starts to question Hellmuth as to why he’d make such a big bet, Hellmuth talks and says these things:

  • “I could have a set.”
  • “I could have Ace Ten of spades.”
  • “I could have blockers.”

These are all ways to communicate the idea that Hellmuth’s hand range may not be the flopped straight. And weak-hand statements are very reliable as signs of strength when it comes to big bets, for both amateur and experienced players. To understand why this is so powerful, ask yourself this: if you were making a big bluff, and given the choice between staying quiet and saying things that imply you’re on the weaker side and that could make a call more likely, which would you prefer to do? Most players, amateur and experienced, prefer to stay quiet in those spots.

The board texture can affect how this pattern plays out, too. In this example, there’s a flush draw out there, including many flush draws that are also straight draws, which means Polk could have hands that have very good equity against Hellmuth’s range. This means that Hellmuth would, even with some of his strong hands, not really want action and would be happy if Polk folded. So assuming we grant that the weak-hand statements are meaningful as strength, with this board texture, they become even more indicative of a very strong hand (and not, for example, a set).

But wait, you may be thinking, Hellmuth is experienced and he could be trying to level/trick Polk in some advanced, tricky way. Or maybe, you might be saying, these statements are said obviously in a joking way, not intended to mean much. Both of those things can be true but, as someone who’s studied this stuff a lot, I can tell you that such reversals of the big-bet-with-weak-hand-statement pattern are quite rare. While experienced players can be verbally tricky in various ways (something I examine a good amount in my Verbal Poker Tells book), switching up this weak-hand statement pattern is not one of them and seldom happens.

And the reasons why it’s seldom reversed are actually pretty easy to understand. There are two:

  • It’s quite hard to predict how an opponent will interpret your behavior, and this is especially true when both players are experienced. If Polk were one to take tells into account much, in this spot he might be thinking “but why would Hellmuth say something like that that usually means a strong hand? Is he trying to reverse the common meaning and level me? Or is trying to reverse-level me?” In short, the fact that such verbal interactions easily lead to “leveling wars” and second-guessing is the reason why it’s seldom reversed; because getting tricky with statements about your own hand strength doesn’t lead to reliable outcomes. And that goes the same whether such statements are said seriously or jokingly.
  • And also: when you’re bluffing and you imply that you’re weak, and then you get called, you feel stupid. And that fear of feeling stupid is a big reason players who don’t want calls seldom state or imply that they have hand ranges that don’t like calls.

All this means that, even for experienced players, making weak-hand statements when making a big bet will be done almost entirely with strong hands. There’s just less at risk; they’re more relaxed and not as concerned about their opponent’s decision. (Worth mentioning: being talkative when making a big bet is a general indicator of strength for more recreational-level players, but as this is so well-known, it becomes less true the more experienced a player is.)

Some other related aspects worth mentioning:

  • Size of bet. For most weak-hand statements made when bluffing or semi-bluffing, these tend to be in smaller-bet situations, like standard flop or turn bluffs/semi-bluffs. The larger the bet and the more action-ending it is, the more players’ behavior will tend to fit the general weak-hand statement pattern I’ve described.
  • Multiple statements. Hellmuth’s has multiple weak-hand statements, which makes the behavior more likely to be meaningful than a single one-off statement.
  • One caveat. One caveat in this area is that occasionally bluffers will make a weak-hand statement that subtracts a single very strong hand (often the nuts) but leaves many strong hands in their range, in an effort to subtly communicate strength. An example: someone shoves the river on a paired board that has a flush possible and says, “I swear I don’t have quads.” This can communicate some strength because it implies “Well ok I don’t have the nuts but me be willing to say that implies I must be a bit relaxed”, and also their statement still leaves many strong hands in play. (One example like this from Hellmuth I found in my database was a hand where Hellmuth bluffs with Ace high on a T-T-8-3-5 river board and Antonio Esfandiari asks “Ace ten?” and Hellmuth says, “No.” Similar concept: removing a single strong hand where many strong hands are still in play.) This caveat doesn’t apply to Hellmuth’s behavior here though.

Another factor: Polk stating his intention to fold

Another dynamic here is that Polk states that he’s considering making a big laydown. When Polk says that, Hellmuth speaks up, saying quite a few things, including the weak-hand statements we just examined.

When someone says they’re going to fold, and the other person is bluffing, there’s a general pattern of the bluffer staying quiet, to not interrupt things.

To put it another way, think about it from Hellmuth’s perspective: Doug says he’s going to make a big laydown, so there’s not that much of a reason to speak up. Most players, even experienced players, will not want to say something to “get in the way” of that fold.

This is especially true because staying silent after making a big bet is the norm, for all players, whether with strong or weak hands. In other words: most players are silent in most big-bet spots. It might be different if Hellmuth were under some sort of pressure to talk in that spot. But considering that it’d be entirely normal for him to remain silent, no matter his hand range, it’s probably significant that he decided to verbally interact at all here.

I’ve spent some time thinking about the “I’m going to fold” or “I’m going to call” statements as gambits to induce responses. My thoughts on this are that, if you’re trying to gain some info, it’s better to say what Doug said here than to state an intention to call. A couple reasons for this:

  • Most players making big bets are betting strong hands. And players with strong hands will be more likely to talk and give you some information and make a fold easier.
  • Bluffers will likely remain quiet, no matter what you say, so this means that it’s quite rare to get a helpful response to a stated intention to call. You’ll occasionally induce a last-second talkative attempt to discourage you but it seldom happens.

So for these reasons, I prefer the “I’m almost certainly folding here” as a gambit. (If you choose to do this, it should be used sparingly, as the more you try such things, the more you hold up the game and the more your opponents know that you’re looking for clues.)

Final thoughts

Mainly, again, I think Polk’s decision was predicated on Hellmuth’s playing style. Polk likely asked himself, “What hands would Hellmuth quickly check the flop with and then make a huge shove with?” It’s also possible Polk used some behavior to make this decision, but we’ll likely never know if that was true, because high-stakes players don’t like to talk about that stuff, for obvious reasons (weakens their edge, and opens them up for reverse tells).

If you liked this topic, you might enjoy these other resources of mine: