Does Talking at the Table Actually Help You Win?

Talking after a big bet is a classic tell of strength, so if you can manage it well, and not turn it into a tell, it can be advantageous. The problem is, folks will figure it out pretty fast unless you also do it when you really are strong, and that might lose you as much value as you gain in FE on your bluffs.

I think random banter is actually higher EV. Tables with a lot of talking and laughing are also looser, and there's no tells to be worried about. You are just trying to have a good time and to make the table into a little party. The fact that those tables aren't just more fun, but also more profitable is not something folks can exploit once they figure it out.

I have come to believe that you have to be animated playing poker. I’m not sure talking a lot is necessary, but you have to be involved, engaged, ready to strike. If you’re sitting there quiet because you’re tired or took a beat, then your chips will drift away.

Agreed, some great players use talking to discover comfort level & see if there’s tension. Asking a weird question in a heated moment can expose comfort level and be effective. But most players are not great, so I don’t worry much about it.

You have to be yourself, have your own style. I think engaging with others is important, but it can be overdone. It’s like craps, you win at a happy table.

I don’t consider it angling to use targeted talk and there is literature to help you develop this skill. I have been bluffed by a guy that was having a regular conversation with his neighbor the entire time he was stuffing the pot. Being relaxed under pressure is a superpower.

The best player I ever played with was able to exploit everyone at the table. I was fascinated as he cornered each player and attacked relentlessly. No players card, never came back, but he knew some things. Did piss me off because he didn’t tip.

I hope you find what works for you, but don’t be someone you’re not. Quiet styles work (Antonius, Ivey) too.

The other day I had a blind vs blind situation where I was BB and the SB didn't want to chop so we started talking and joking. I had K7o and the flop came K-K-7. He bet out and started looking very serious and I said something like "oh I thought we were playing friendly?" and he said he had a strong hand. I think it was some kind of flush draw that whiffed in the end but my feeling was that he detected through my table talk that I was also strong - like when you say "oh you're betting again? c'monnnn" and then raise.... its just too face up.

Generally it's a sign of strength, as Garick said, so if you can use it as a reverse tell then by all means do so. The key is that you have to be comfortable talking to your opponent when you're bluffing and have some genuine acting skills, which most players don't. I can remember a few occasions when I've been watching the aggressor talk/goad their opponent and thought they were doing so for pure value and been wrong (and then thought these "talkers" have probably been getting a ton of bluffs like this through, over the years). I guess the problem is that if you're using talk as a reverse tell then you need to be talking a lot as the aggressor, which if not natural to you may annoy the table, not to mention tire you out.

I talk a lot because I feel like being involved in table banter covers up the fact that I'm generally very tight.

This is a common strategy that I see a lot of tight players using. They try to cover up for the tightness of their play with a lot of table talk.

FWIW, I think that talking at the poker table can have several good upsides for winning players. But you need to be skillful with the talking for it to be +EV overall.

+1

A talking table is typically just a more fun table to play at (whether we're winning or losing) and is likely more profitable in the long run thanks to the good vibes.

Gthenittiestguyatthetable+alsotheguyhavingthemostfunG

This. I think it's much more difficult to give off reverse tells than people think, and it takes a lot of practise. Also one of those things where if you do 5 things and one of them comes off as strength/weakness then it doesn't matter how well you did the other 4 things.

On the other side, it works the opposite way and so it's much easier (you only need to see 1 thing that makes you feel a way) ... if you are in a big spot, don't make snap decisions and let V sweat and/or talk to them and hope they punt a live tell.

Lost count of the number of times someone has said something they thought would get me to call/fold and it immediately got me to do the opposite. I've seen a couple of decent reverse tells but they were all subtle (so move my decision making a small amount), maybe I'm going to get owned by genius reverse tells at 2-5+ but I would bet against it.

Also betting size tells are still by far the biggest thing, IMNSHO ... and it's challenging to do those in reverse.

As Garick said having a generally fun/happy table is huge +EV ... but approach talking within a hand, about the hand, very carefully.

I play low stakes. My win rate is not even minimum wage and so some of my EV has to come from entertainment and so I tend to like social tables with lots of good fun convo and I join in.

Hate playing against a table full of silent types.

I try to do my part to keep the game fun for the recs by engaging in chit-chat at the table. I'll break balls with the dealer, poke fun at myself, whatever it takes to keep the mood light and lively, because I think that leads to a better game.

The recs don't mind losing as much, and will stay longer, when they're having fun. I also think they're more likely to make loose calls or tight folds when they don't feel like they're being bullied by some semi-pro. I can't stand when I see some grinder at the table, wearing headphones and staring at his iPad while he folds everything waiting for a "playable hand."

As for trying to use table-talk in-hand, it can be done, if you're capable of thinking on your feet, but it can sometimes backfire. Talking to an opponent while they tank is often seen as a sign of strength, but I've had opponents call after I said the same thing in the same way that made another opponent fold.

My observation is that in order to employ table talk and other mind-games effectively, you really need to understand your opponent - what motivates him, what scares him - and have some proficiency regarding what tactics will elicit the response you want.

For instance, I'll sometimes call clock when I'm nutted and want a call. The conventional wisdom is that calling clock looks weak, so in theory, I'm doing it to induce a hero call. But I've mostly done it when my opponent has annoyed me with their actions in past hands, I suspect they're going to tank-fold, and I just don't want to give them the courtesy of added time to think before mucking.

The results are pretty evenly split - they call about half the time, and fold about half the time. I think it's mostly been the same with my table talk. At least at the stakes I play, they're either looking for a reason to call or looking for a reason to fold, and anything we do to try to nudge them one way or the other probably doesn't change much in their analysis.

I had this the other way round. In general any sign of impatience is usually a sign of strength. Not that it's a strong tell.

^ I'd say calling the clock is a sign of strength, although if your opponent is a little tilted/hostile toward you, it can encourage them to spite-call.

The logic about calling the clock suggests that if you had a strong hand you'd be willing to wait all day for your opponent to call. Thus, if you call clock it's supposedly an effort to get V to make a hasty decision to fold when we know we're behind.

For me, it's less about trying to induce an outcome, and more about letting my opponent know I've watched him and how he plays, and I don't intend to let him sit there and Hollywood for two minutes before folding, which is what I'm expecting him to do. I'll do it vs opponents who I've seen tank too much, or who are nitty in general.

Like, if a guy folds every hand for an hour, then finally plays one, check raises me, and I jam on him, I'm not letting him take two minutes to tank. He's been sitting there all night waiting for a hand to play, and he had multiple opportunities to consider his actions before I jammed. If a guy just habitually tanks, and I'm fed up with it, I'll give him ten seconds, then call clock.

So, my logic is, if I think he's folding anyway, and I want him to call, then calling the clock just forces him to a decision sooner, and speeds the game along. If he folds anyway, I've lost nothing, and put him on notice. If he calls, then I win more.

I talk a lot at the table. I try to get others talking and joking, too. I think it's good for the game -- as stated earlier, it loosens the table up and gets people gambling a little more. However, I do not talk during hands, especially in big pots. I think it gives too much away. I try to act the same whether I'm bluffing or extremely strong. I could do the same with table talk, but when you're trying to act the same way in every situation, I think it's much easier to just stay quiet.

In smaller pots I sometimes talk, but of course I try to keep it the same no matter what -- it's tough, though.

If you play live poker with any serious intent to make money chatting it up/having fun is so +ev to your wallet. People loosen up, more straddles/double straddles raising the stakes, maybe you can get invited to soft private games, etc. The kids in hoodies,headphones,talking strategy,etc are burning a lot of future ev.

I agree that chatty tables are EV+. But what about talking during hands? People tend to overfold when you give good reverse tells and feel comfortable. It takes practice but in clóse decisions it can work on your favor if you do it right

Thought more about this & the guy I mentioned earlier who played so well & dominated the table. It occurred to me that he engaged everyone at the table ‘individually’ at some point. It was almost like he developed a relationship with every player & then knew how to play each of them.

I think this really depends on who you are playing. You can practice all you want, but it's not going to matter vs someone who isn't paying attention, doesn't know what tells are, has been at the table for only a few hands, etc. I think it can be helpful if you are in a regular game. However, I think just doing the same thing every time is better and easier -- even if that's talking during the hand as long as it's done the same during every hand.

This. If you can talk at the table and not be annoying (doesn't have to be during hands at all), the people who come to play poker for entertainment (aka who you want to play with) will want to play with you.

People will enjoy playing with you and you do get that perception of action because you aren't just a body in a seat that doesn't say a word except the one hand an hour they raise preflop.

I'm generally anti-social by nature. I'm a pretty big introvert. I have no problem being alone (actually like it) & have no problem not talking to anyone. However, oddly enough, I often engage in BS table talk, just general conversations about sports, traffic & other random BS.

I do not talk to my opponent during hands to try to get them to fold or call or whatever. I usually clam up when I'm in a hand, even if I'm just waiting for my turn to fold. I only talk with the table when I'm not in a hand.

I find tables where everyone is fairly friendly, laughing & having a good time are much more profitable than the ones filled with super serious wanna be pro's wearing hoodies, sunglasses & headphone.

So, is it your intention with this thread to ask the question, or make the statement?

I don't think many people would try to argue that in-hand table talk is always EV+ or EV-. I'd think most would say that in order for it to be consistently EV+, you need to be really good at reading your opponent and knowing what prompts are most likely to induce the results you're hoping to achieve.

There are obvious caveats to what you're saying. The spots need to be close, and we need to be practiced enough to execute correctly, and even if the first two conditions are true, we still need the opponent to make an incorrect decision as a third condition.

It's that last part which seems most variable. Even if we're in a close spot and know what to say, an opponent may still end up doing the opposite of what we want them to do.

In my personal observation, understanding an opponent's basic personality traits, and working to exploit them is generally going to be more EV+ than trying to trick an opponent into making an incorrect decision with some late-stage speech-play in edge-case scenarios.

Just to add to the above, I'll give an example of some table talk I've used, and the results versus two different types of opponents.

When I bet and an opponent tanks, I'll sometimes say, "What do you have? It must be a pretty decent hand when you [raise pre, check-raise flop, think this long, whatever the case may be]."

When I do this facing a macho guy who likes to bully the table, their reaction is often to call with only the strongest hands in their range, and fold the rest. Their ego doesn't want them to look weak, but they also don't want to look or feel stupid for making a bad call or bad fold. They'll let go of their bluff catchers, and often say something "sour-grapes", like "I'll let you have this one. My hand isn't that strong." If they call with a strong hand and lose, they'll say it's a cooler and I just got lucky enough to have a better hand than theirs. They can't admit they were out-played.

When I do this facing a more passive opponent, they tend to call way more, with all sorts of hands. Passive opponents resent feeling like a more aggressive opponent is pushing them around, constantly bullying them into folding decent hands. When they're tanking, and we start badgering them, they'll often decide it's time to stand up to the table bully, and they don't worry about looking foolish for calling with a weaker hand. They're more interested in not looking or feeling like a victim.

It's the same speech play in both scenarios. What's different is the opponent, the range I'm giving them, and the result I'm hoping to induce. I'll use that speech play with a macho guy when I'm betting polar, and know that my opponent would have turbo-mucked the worst hands in his range as soon as I bet. I'd never try to use that speech on a passive opponent when I'm bluffing, only when I'm betting for value and want a call.

If I'm not very confident about how an opponent is likely to react, I'll just sit quiet and let them tank.

Good stuff doc

I got from Alex Fitzgerald the idea of asking something off the wall (I think his example ‘have you ever seen a baby pigeon’)

This is to discover the ‘comfort level’ of the villain. They have heard all the ‘what you got’ type questions, but if you ask something crazy, you might get an honest reaction in a tense situation.

I think there’s still so much I don’t know in this area. I would love to pick the mind of some talkative crushers, because this skill is used best in big pots. Swinging a couple of them your way is huge for the bottom line.