Poker Psychology and Psychologists

When I started to play poker, there were no poker psychologists. There were doctors who specialized in treating compulsive gambling. The supposed authority was Edmund Brugler, who wrote The Psychology of Gambling, which had the stated purpose of substantiating, ‘with clinical proof, the theory that the gambler has an unconscious wish to lose—and therefore always loses in the long run.’ I remember skimming it and thinking this guy has no clue. Today there are at least four people, who specialize in various aspects of poker and have written some interesting and informative things. In alphabetical order with what I think of as their specialties, they are:

1. Patricia Cardner: mastering the psychological aspects of poker
2. Elliot Roe: using hypnosis to improve your poker
3. Jared Tendler: causes and cures for tilt
4. Alan Schoonmaker: the psychological factors that influence your and your opponent’s play

In this column, I want to look at a few ideas from modern psychology that can be usefully applied to thinking about poker. The first concept, which is one that many people transiting from amateur to professional play encounter and have trouble accepting, is the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. This is sometimes referred to as the Overjustification Effect. Intrinsic rewards are the pleasures you get from doing something you love. Extrinsic rewards come from the outside, not from doing the thing itself. The classic extrinsic reward is, of course, money. Many studies have shown that if someone is given a monetary reward for doing something they had formerly done for pleasure, they lose interest in doing it without the reward, and may even require an increasing amount to sustain their interest. This means that even though you loved playing poker as an amateur, you may find it to be a lot less enjoyable, even drudgery, when it becomes your profession. This explains why so many pros have trouble putting in their hours playing. It makes going through a bad streak really unbearable, since playing is now a chore for which you aren’t being rewarded. (For more on this read the Wikipedia article on the Overjustification Effect.)

The next psychological concept I want to mention is sometimes referred to as “The Fundamental Attribution Error.” We make this error by crediting our good results to our skills while at the same time attributing our bad results to bad luck, not our lack of skill. In order to escape this trap, you have to learn to separate good and bad plays from good and bad results. The other side of the attribution error is that we tend to attribute other people’s good results to their good luck, but their bad results to their bad play. This is one explanation for why so many players think they are better than they are and why they think their opponents are worse than they are.

The last idea I will touch on in this column is that of cognitive dissonance. We all tend to think of ourselves as smart, disciplined, moral, and skillful. When our behavior presents evidence that this is not the case, we experience psychological discomfort. The discomfort is even more extreme when it is on public display. The board runs out K 10 2 5 2. Our opponent check-raises us with the nuts (quad deuces) on the river, and we call with the second nuts (kings full.) We are unhappy, but we also know that everyone else would have done the same thing. There is no dissonance, and we often show our hand to elicit sympathy from the table. If our hand had been A 9 and we decide our opponent is bluffing with a missed draw to a lower flush or a missed straight with a hand like Q-J, now we have just called quads with ace-high. That is pretty embarrassing. We feel stupid, and are ashamed to show our hand. This is cognitive dissonance. How can we be smart and have done something so stupid? A lot of us avoid taking any action that might make us look stupid. I am always amazed to watch the top pros take actions they think are correct, even though they will look incredibly dumb if they are wrong. Tom Dwan has been known to make some huge three-bullet bluffs. In the recent Aria Super High Roller Bowl, Brian Rast called a large river bet with king-high, knowing that he was ahead of much of his opponent’s range, and that his opponent could easily be bluffing.

Before moving on from the Super High Roller Bowl, I want to complement the great commentary of high-stakes pro Nick Schulman and long time commentator Ali Nejad. I loved the battle of the final four: Rainer Kempe, who I’d never seen in action; Fedor Holz, who is young and quite impressive; my old friend Erik Seidel, a longtime top high-limit player (I can claim to be one of his first poker teachers and backers, although his skills long ago passed mine;) and Phil Hellmuth, whose no-limit hold’em tournament feel is still as awesomely accurate as ever. ♠

Steve ‘Zee’ Zolotow, aka The Bald Eagle, is a successful gamesplayer. He has been a full-time gambler for over 35 years. With two WSOP bracelets and few million in tournament cashes, he is easing into retirement. He currently devotes most of his time to poker. He can be found at some major tournaments and playing in cash games in Vegas. When escaping from poker, he hangs out in his bars on Avenue A in New York City -The Library near Houston and Doc Holliday’s on 9th St. are his favorites.