See the full list of poker tells FAQs.
When a player seems to try to communicate that there are factors, aside from having a strong hand, that led to him betting or raising, that will tend to indicate a strong hand.
In my first book, Reading Poker Tells, I talked about what I called disclaimers, which were statements that seemed to try to de-emphasize and explain away the meaning of a player’s action. In my follow-up book, Verbal Poker Tells, I worded it differently and talked about misdirections. Both of the concepts pointed to the same idea; it’s just that misdirections seemed a broader category for these types of behaviors, while disclaimers seemed like a subset of misdirections.
Here are some important points about misdirections:
- A misdirection explains away an action. A player suggests they bet or raised for some reason other than having a strong hand: “Everybody checked? I’ll bet.”
- The implied weakness often points to strength. When a bettor offers an excuse for an aggressive action, they’re often holding a strong hand.
- The pattern can apply to checks, too. A player who gives a reason for checking other than a weak hand may, in fact, be weak.
I’ll give you an excerpt from Reading Poker Tells and then an excerpt from Verbal Poker Tells.
Here’s the excerpt from Reading Poker Tells:
Disclaimers
When a player makes a statement that tries to explain away the importance of an action, that player’s strength is probably opposite of what they are trying to communicate.
There is a class of verbal statements that I call disclaimers. These are statements that attempt to explain away, or “disclaim”, the real meaning behind an action. A basic example of this would be when a no-limit tournament player goes all in while announcing something like, “I’ve only got a few chips left. I guess I’ve only got one move.” He is implying that him not having many chips left is a primary reason for going all in. More often than not, that player will be strong.
Another example would be when two players are heads-up on the flop and the player first to act says in a friendly manner, as if just noticing that it’s only the two of them, “Just us? I’ll check.” With this statement, he’s implying that he’s checking because there are only two people playing, or because he’s friendly with his opponent. What he’s trying to say is, “I’m checking because we’re heads-up, not because I have a weak hand.” So, in actuality, he’s probably checking because he has a weak hand.
That’s pretty simple stuff. But sometimes disclaimers can be more subtle and can require more in-depth interpretation.
In a multi-way pot, the player last to act looks momentarily confused. “Everybody checked? I’ll bet.” He’s implying that the main reason for his bet is that everyone has shown weakness, not that his hand is strong. This is probably untrue and he’s likely strong.
Another example: It’s a loose game, where there has been a lot of recent raising. A late-position player suddenly becomes belligerent when someone raises in front of him. “Raise! Raise! Raise! Everybody wants to raise!” he mock-yells, as if disgusted with how much everyone has been raising, and he throws in a second raise. He’s implying that he’s only raising because he’s irritated and not because his hand is strong, so it’s likely he’s raising because his hand is strong.
Here’s an excerpt from Verbal Poker Tells:
What are misdirections?
As we learned in the last section, it’s uncommon for players to directly state their own hand strength. When players do attempt to verbally manipulate opponents, indirect statements are much more common. Some indirect, deceptive statements can be considered misdirections.
Misdirections are an attempt to “explain away” the true meaning behind a speaker’s action. Another fitting word for them would be excuses. (In my book Reading Poker Tells, I called them disclaimers because they tended to disclaim, or denounce responsibility for, an action. I’ve decided that misdirection is a better general name for this kind of statement.)
Here are a few examples of fairly simple misdirections:
High Stakes Poker, high stakes NLHE cash game, S4 E17, ~16:00
Guy Laliberté has rivered the nuts with A♠ K♦ on a board of A♦ A♥ 5♦ 9♠ K♣. He checks. Daniel Negreanu, with J♠ J♥, bets $5,000 into a pot of $17,100.
Laliberté says, “Not very convincing” and then raises to $15,000.
He’s implying that he’s raising because Negreanu’s bet doesn’t convince him that Negreanu has a strong hand. This, in turn, implies that he (Laliberté) could be raising with a wide range of hands, including bluffs. He’s weakening his own range, which makes it unlikely he’s weak.
$1-2 NLHE cash game, submitted by J. Vu
A player 3-bets pre-flop to $32.
His opponent has A♣ A♥. He says, “Let’s see where this kid’s heart lies” before 4-betting to $82.
He’s implying his raise is primarily intended as a test of his opponent’s courage (his heart). In a similar way to the last example, this player is weakening his own range by implying his raise is intended to test his opponent’s resolve.
2005 WSOP Main Event NLHE tournament, E9, ~35:00
Steve Dannenmann has 9♥ 9♣ and flops a set on a board of T♦ 9♠ 5♦. Joe Hachem, holding A♦ K♦, checks the flop and Dannenmann bets 150,000. Hachem raises to 1M. Dannenmann shoves for 3.75M more.
Hachem says, “You’re staring me down as if you’ve got nothing.”
Dannenmann replies, “Everything else is extra credit from here for me, buddy.”
Hachem: “Sorry?”
Dannenmann: “Everything now is extra credit for me. I got past the first day.”
Hachem: “All-in, huh?”
Dannenmann (shrugs): “Hey, I’m just having fun.”
With his statements that “everything else is extra credit from here” and “I’m just having fun,” Dannenmann is implying that he doesn’t mind being eliminated because he’s happy just to have made it that far in the tournament. These statements imply that his raise is made not because he has a strong hand, but because he doesn’t much care about his fate. (Again, these statements indirectly weaken his hand range, which makes it unlikely he’s weak.)
More on misdirections
Most misdirections are first-level deception—they will subtly imply the opposite of what is actually true about a player’s hand. All of the previous examples are first-level deceptions, as are almost all of the examples we’ll look at.
Most misdirections accompany a bet. This is probably because a bet is more significant an action than checking or calling and would seem to require more of an explanation.
Most misdirections will be heard when a player is betting with a strong hand. This is because players betting strong hands are more relaxed and are more likely to talk than are players betting weak hands. Many misdirections seem to be cases where a relaxed player wants to say something, without it really mattering what it is.
Here’s a video about misdirections:
Zachary Elwood is the author of the Reading Poker Tells trilogy of books, which has been translated into eight languages and sold more than 48,000 copies. See more frequently asked poker tells questions.