egthareal
05-18-2005, 07:15 PM
Social Psychology and Poker
By Matthew Martens
as originally posted here (http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/players/matthew-martens01.htm)
In addition to being an avid low-limit poker player, I also happen to be a psychology professor. This, I realize, is a frightening combination, on multiple levels (my students get a kick out of seeing "playing poker" as a hobby on my faculty webpage, and I think that the other faculty members think that I am some kind of degenerate). One would expect that a background in psychology would provide someone with an advantage at the tables, providing enough profit to pay for, say, at least his student loans. Alas, I have not been so fortunate yet, possibly because psychologists are not very good at examining their own behavior. However, we tend to be good at analyzing the behavior of others, or analyzing our own behavior after it is too late to rectify the situation (like in my last tourney where I went all in w/JJ on a KTx flop, after the player UTG bet strong at the pot and called me with KQ-not a great play there Dr. Freud). Now, I'm not saying that I psychoanalyze people at the table (I'm much more of a cognitive-behaviorist), but I do think that by understanding some fundamental psychological principles players can make more rational, better decisions at the tables. I also think that when people can place a label on something, it makes it easier for them to remember. So, I'd like to discuss three principles that I've taken from the field of social psychology that I think are relevant to behaviors that you'll see at the poker table.
The Fundamental Attribution Error
The Fundamental Attribution Error is a pretty straightforward concept, which has been supported in countless studies across all types of behaviors. Essentially, what it means is that individuals have a tendency to attribute other people's behaviors to internal rather than external causes. Conversely, especially when dealing with choices or behaviors that have a negative outcome, people have a tendency to attribute their own behaviors to external rather than internal causes. In poker, this can translate to players assuming that an opponent is a weak or poor player when he or she makes some decisions that turn out unfavorably, while assuming that they are simply "unlucky" when their own decisions turn out unfavorably. Essentially, this error in thinking can cause players to be less objective when evaluating both their own play and the quality of their opponents, which can of course lead to additional poor decisions. It is crucial that players not tag an opponent as "weak" simply because they see him or her make some decisions that turn out poorly. Similarly, it is crucial that players be able to fight the tendency to attribute their own unsuccessful plays solely to external factors (i.e., "bad" or "unlucky" cards), and take an honest look at themselves at the quality of their play.
Social Norms and Conformity
Another consistent finding from the field of social psychology is that whenever people belong to a group (like a poker game) there is a tendency for individuals to want to conform to the behaviors of other group members. So, you might get seated at a wild table where it seems like everybody is betting and raising with any two cards, and realize four hours and 50 big bets letter that you have no idea why you chose to call three bets cold with Q7 suited and A6 offsuit. Or, you might be seated at a table where it's common for 6-8 people to limp preflop, with literally no preflop raising, and realize that over the past two hours you failed to raise with AA, KK, and AK suited when on the button. In each of these situations, what has happened is that the player has (subconsciously?) conformed to the behavior at the table, to his or her detriment. Now, of course one can play more drawing hands with greater numbers of players seeing the flop, and one certainly would not want to drive calling stations out of a game with hyper-aggressive play. However, there is a fine line between adjusting one's play to maximize the specific game situation that he or she faces, versus adjusting one's play to simply "fit in" with everyone else at the table. The former will generate profit over the long run; the latter will probably ensure that you will at best break even.
Social Loafing
This final principle applies only to tournaments, specifically when players are in a position when knocking out someone will result in a major benefit to all other players, such as getting in the money, making the final table, having a big jump in prize payout, etc. The principle of social loafing suggests that people in group settings often sit around and wait for other people to do the work, so that they can in effect get all the reward with no work. In tournament poker, this would translate to individuals choosing not to risk their chips in an effort to knock someone out, instead waiting for someone else to do the dirty work. For example, in single-table tournaments that pay three places, you will often see a situation where three players who have a relatively equal amount of chips become very timid when the fourth player is short-stacked, in an effort to get into the money. The individual who can benefit from this phenomenon, of course, is the short-stacked player who is most at-risk. If it appears that the other players at the table seem to be waiting for each other to make a move against this player, then the short-stacked player has a great opportunity, with aggressive play, to work his or her way back into contention. If a player is one of the larger stacks, and the other two players have gone into "social loafing" mode, then that player will often find him or herself in somewhat of a tricky situation. On the one hand, the player can oftentimes take advantage of the passive play from the loafers. However, the player has to be careful of becoming the "table sheriff" who becomes in charge, by default, of knocking out the short stack, and ends up losing a considerable portion of his or her chips. This is especially true when the short-stack also tries to take advantage of the situation by becoming more aggressive in his or her play. Therefore, players have to walk the line of playing aggressive in an effort to take advantage of other players' passivity, yet also not going overboard in the pursuit of taking care of the short-stack.
Conclusion
By understanding these three principles of social psychology, and recognizing when they are occurring in one's poker game, players should be better able to make winning decisions and evaluations about their play. It is important to note that the factors discussed in this article, the Fundamental Attribution Error, a desire for conformity, and Social Loafing, are essentially part of "human nature," so by our natural inclinations we often engage in the behaviors. Therefore, it will take work to recognize when they are negatively affecting your game, but overcoming them should provide profitable benefits in the long run.
By Matthew Martens
as originally posted here (http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/players/matthew-martens01.htm)
In addition to being an avid low-limit poker player, I also happen to be a psychology professor. This, I realize, is a frightening combination, on multiple levels (my students get a kick out of seeing "playing poker" as a hobby on my faculty webpage, and I think that the other faculty members think that I am some kind of degenerate). One would expect that a background in psychology would provide someone with an advantage at the tables, providing enough profit to pay for, say, at least his student loans. Alas, I have not been so fortunate yet, possibly because psychologists are not very good at examining their own behavior. However, we tend to be good at analyzing the behavior of others, or analyzing our own behavior after it is too late to rectify the situation (like in my last tourney where I went all in w/JJ on a KTx flop, after the player UTG bet strong at the pot and called me with KQ-not a great play there Dr. Freud). Now, I'm not saying that I psychoanalyze people at the table (I'm much more of a cognitive-behaviorist), but I do think that by understanding some fundamental psychological principles players can make more rational, better decisions at the tables. I also think that when people can place a label on something, it makes it easier for them to remember. So, I'd like to discuss three principles that I've taken from the field of social psychology that I think are relevant to behaviors that you'll see at the poker table.
The Fundamental Attribution Error
The Fundamental Attribution Error is a pretty straightforward concept, which has been supported in countless studies across all types of behaviors. Essentially, what it means is that individuals have a tendency to attribute other people's behaviors to internal rather than external causes. Conversely, especially when dealing with choices or behaviors that have a negative outcome, people have a tendency to attribute their own behaviors to external rather than internal causes. In poker, this can translate to players assuming that an opponent is a weak or poor player when he or she makes some decisions that turn out unfavorably, while assuming that they are simply "unlucky" when their own decisions turn out unfavorably. Essentially, this error in thinking can cause players to be less objective when evaluating both their own play and the quality of their opponents, which can of course lead to additional poor decisions. It is crucial that players not tag an opponent as "weak" simply because they see him or her make some decisions that turn out poorly. Similarly, it is crucial that players be able to fight the tendency to attribute their own unsuccessful plays solely to external factors (i.e., "bad" or "unlucky" cards), and take an honest look at themselves at the quality of their play.
Social Norms and Conformity
Another consistent finding from the field of social psychology is that whenever people belong to a group (like a poker game) there is a tendency for individuals to want to conform to the behaviors of other group members. So, you might get seated at a wild table where it seems like everybody is betting and raising with any two cards, and realize four hours and 50 big bets letter that you have no idea why you chose to call three bets cold with Q7 suited and A6 offsuit. Or, you might be seated at a table where it's common for 6-8 people to limp preflop, with literally no preflop raising, and realize that over the past two hours you failed to raise with AA, KK, and AK suited when on the button. In each of these situations, what has happened is that the player has (subconsciously?) conformed to the behavior at the table, to his or her detriment. Now, of course one can play more drawing hands with greater numbers of players seeing the flop, and one certainly would not want to drive calling stations out of a game with hyper-aggressive play. However, there is a fine line between adjusting one's play to maximize the specific game situation that he or she faces, versus adjusting one's play to simply "fit in" with everyone else at the table. The former will generate profit over the long run; the latter will probably ensure that you will at best break even.
Social Loafing
This final principle applies only to tournaments, specifically when players are in a position when knocking out someone will result in a major benefit to all other players, such as getting in the money, making the final table, having a big jump in prize payout, etc. The principle of social loafing suggests that people in group settings often sit around and wait for other people to do the work, so that they can in effect get all the reward with no work. In tournament poker, this would translate to individuals choosing not to risk their chips in an effort to knock someone out, instead waiting for someone else to do the dirty work. For example, in single-table tournaments that pay three places, you will often see a situation where three players who have a relatively equal amount of chips become very timid when the fourth player is short-stacked, in an effort to get into the money. The individual who can benefit from this phenomenon, of course, is the short-stacked player who is most at-risk. If it appears that the other players at the table seem to be waiting for each other to make a move against this player, then the short-stacked player has a great opportunity, with aggressive play, to work his or her way back into contention. If a player is one of the larger stacks, and the other two players have gone into "social loafing" mode, then that player will often find him or herself in somewhat of a tricky situation. On the one hand, the player can oftentimes take advantage of the passive play from the loafers. However, the player has to be careful of becoming the "table sheriff" who becomes in charge, by default, of knocking out the short stack, and ends up losing a considerable portion of his or her chips. This is especially true when the short-stack also tries to take advantage of the situation by becoming more aggressive in his or her play. Therefore, players have to walk the line of playing aggressive in an effort to take advantage of other players' passivity, yet also not going overboard in the pursuit of taking care of the short-stack.
Conclusion
By understanding these three principles of social psychology, and recognizing when they are occurring in one's poker game, players should be better able to make winning decisions and evaluations about their play. It is important to note that the factors discussed in this article, the Fundamental Attribution Error, a desire for conformity, and Social Loafing, are essentially part of "human nature," so by our natural inclinations we often engage in the behaviors. Therefore, it will take work to recognize when they are negatively affecting your game, but overcoming them should provide profitable benefits in the long run.