First Impressions - Part II: Reading Cards and Players

Part I of this series said first impressions have a huge impact on the way we perceive other people and situations: "Once we label a person, his cards, or anything else, that label affects the information we look for and the way we process it." Because it is impossible to win without accurately reading other players and their cards, these distortions can have a devastating effect on our results. This column will suggest ways to reduce these distortions, although it is literally impossible to eliminate them.

Doctors and scientists are taught and sometimes legally required to use procedures that reduce the distorting effects of first impressions. For example, they may defer a diagnosis until they have seen blood tests, X-rays, and other information, or they may ask for second opinions; when testing drugs, they must use double-blind procedures. Unfortunately, when playing poker, you can't wait to make judgments; the cards have been dealt, the action is to you, and you have to do something now. You must, therefore, balance the demand for an immediate action with the fact that your first impressions can distort your perceptions.

Poker is a macho game, and self-confidence is essential for success. If you don't have confidence in your judgment, you can't win. Unfortunately, most players have too much confidence in their judgment; they don't read players or cards nearly as well as they think they do.

You may have the same problem. You certainly don't have as much training in analyzing people as psychiatrists, but research has clearly proven that even they are misled by first impressions and other psychological factors. If they should be cautious about relying on first impressions, so should you.

Doyle Brunson took the opposite position: "Stick to your first impression. Have the courage of your convictions." (Super/System, third edition, Page 440). Since he is an immortal, and his advice supports what they want to do, many people have fallen into the trap of sticking to their first impressions and ignoring any contradictory evidence. It makes them feel "macho," and they may even look down at people who don't have the "courage of their convictions."

If I had Doyle's "feel," I would follow his advice, but I don't, and you probably don't, either. You may think you do, but research clearly proves that most people overestimate their abilities (see "Overestimating our Abilities," Card Player, Nov. 7, 2003). Unless you have extremely clear evidence that you've got great feel, do not always trust it. Instead, keep your mind open and be willing to change it. Once you put someone on a hand or decide he is a certain kind of player, you will overemphasize supporting evidence and minimize or ignore conflicting data.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, David Sklansky suggested a different approach to reading hands, and the same general method applies to reading players: "Do not put undue emphasis on your opinion of your opponent's hand. I know many players who put someone on a certain hand and play the rest of the hand assuming he has that hand. This is taking the method of reading hands too far … Instead, you must put a player on a few different possible hands with varying degrees of probability for each of these hands." (Hold'em Poker, "Reading Hands Introduction")

You may not want to consider other possibilities because doing so implies that your judgment is faulty. An essential step toward improving your reading skill is becoming open-minded enough to reconsider your position.

Do everything possible to make yourself receptive to subsequent information. Regard your first impressions as just starting points and revise them as you get more information. Look especially for contradictory information, for actions that would not occur if your first impression was correct.

The search for contradictory information is absolutely central to scientific research. Virtually all scientists are taught that a good theory is "testable." If you can't create conditions that would disprove a principle, it is not a scientifically acceptable theory. Theories are tested by deriving hypotheses, then creating conditions in which certain events should occur. If they do not occur, the theory is wrong. You can use the same general method while playing poker.

Make predictions (hypotheses) based upon your read. Then, check, bet, or raise to see how your opponent reacts. If he does not react the way you expected, your read could be wrong. He may have different cards or be a different kind of player than you thought.

Of course, one incorrect prediction does not mean much, because so many factors can affect someone's reaction. However, if you consistently test your hypotheses, you should see a pattern. Your mistakes will tend to be in a certain direction, and that direction could say a lot about you.

For example, when confronted with identical information, optimists usually see what they hope to see, while pessimists see what they fear. Dave raised this issue in a whimsical, but insightful, post on twoplustwo.com's Psychology Forum. "Let's say you raise preflop. Most fish … put … you on A-K. However, they are willing to re-evaluate their opinion based on the flop. If the flop is 10-6-5, they continue to assume you have A-K. If the flop is K-10-7, they … change their read to A-Q. If the flop is A-10-6 and they have an ace, they change their read from A-K to K-K." That is, they change their read to whatever gives them an excuse to keep playing and hoping.

Richie's reply to this post pointed out that weak-tight players have the opposite reaction. They are so fearful that they put you on whatever hand gives them the best excuse to fold. He wrote, "The fish hope you have a certain hand. The weak-tight fear you have a certain hand."

You must guard against undue optimism, pessimism, and all other types of distortions. Your goal must be to see what is really there, not what you expect, hope, or fear.

Recognizing a pattern is just one step toward reducing these distortions. The critical question is: Why were you wrong? You may not be a hopeful fish or a fearful weak-tight player, but you certainly have biases. How can I be so sure? Because everyone has them. None of us is immune. A critical step toward reducing their effects is learning what they are.

Without coaching, it is very hard to understand your biases and their effects. They are so central to your thinking that they may seem completely normal. In addition, the poker culture is very anti-introspection; you would probably rather analyze others than yourself. But you can't analyze them accurately if you don't understand the way your biases distort your thinking.

You should therefore discuss hands and players with other people; tell them how you saw a situation, what you learned, and how you acted. Then, ask them to comment on your specific reads and, more importantly, what those reads say about your thinking.

A coach's comments will be especially valuable if he sits behind you while you play. He will certainly see things you overlooked and interpret many signals differently from you. If you carefully compare your reads and his, you'll see patterns that will reveal your biases. These patterns will also suggest other weaknesses and identify unknown strengths. Nothing can teach you more about yourself than an objective "coach."

Everybody's thinking – yours, mine, Freud's, and the world's greatest poker players' – is distorted by first impressions and other biases. These distortions are so central to our nature that nobody can completely escape their effects. To minimize them, we must resist the temptation to jump to conclusions, keep our minds open, and understand and adjust to our own biases. The final column in this series will discuss ways to use these natural weaknesses against our opponents.

Alan often plays at royalvegaspoker.com as one of its team of experts. You can order his book, The Psychology of Poker, through Card Player.