Now on ScienceBlogs: A study that oversells massage therapy

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture

Profile

brayton_headshot_wre_1443.jpg Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Blogroll


Science Blogs Legal Blogs Political Blogs Random Smart and Interesting People Evolution Resources

Archives

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb



Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

Read the Bills Act Coalition

My Ecosystem Details



My Amazon.com Wish List

« ACLU Defends Prison Preacher | Main | Science and the Bush Legacy »

Poker: The Power of Being the Stranger

Posted on: December 13, 2008 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton

In the last few weeks, I've played several times in poker rooms where the regulars didn't know me. Most of the time I play with the same group of people who've played together hundreds of times. We all know each other's tendencies pretty well and it becomes more difficult to mix up your play to keep people off guard. And I've found that I like being the unknown at the table. Let me explain why.

A great example is Wednesday night, when I played at a room in Grand Rapids. The only person in the room who knew me was the lady who runs the room (she also runs the one I play at near my house). At one point she was dealing at my table ($1/$2 no limit holdem, my usual game) and I jokingly remarked that I got no respect for my raises because no one there knew me. This was early in the game, shortly after I sat down.

I had pocket jacks in the big blind and it came back to me unraised with 4 other players in the pot. I raise to $15 and got 3 callers (the small blind folded). Now usually I hate this position. Pocket jacks are a nightmare to play anyway, but far worse in early position. I was frankly just hoping to pick up the blinds and be done with it. In that situation with pocket jacks, you're really just praying for a small flop.

But the flop was better than that. It came 2 10 Jack with two clubs. I bet $20, the player to my left folds, but the third player raised another $50 and the 4th player called the $70. I went all in for another $90 and both players called (#3 only had about another $30 left though). They turned over pretty much what I expected - one had 10 Jack for two pair, the other had 5 9 of clubs for the flush draw. The flush didn't hit and I took down a huge pot.

But here's what happens when you're the stranger at the table and you turn over a big hand early on: you get respect. From that point on, the other players will assume you're strong if you make a raise and it opens up opportunities to bluff and steal pots (not to mention that winning a big pot like that early gives you ammunition to make those bluffs and not be too concerned if you get one picked off). The key, as always when bluffing, is to pick those opportunities wisely.

A couple other things I would note about being the stranger. First, you want to buy in for the table maximum. If the max buy in is $200, you want to buy in for $200. There's two reasons for this. First, if everyone else at the table bought in for that you don't want to be shortstacked and unable to defend against bullying from the bigger stacks. But the opposite is even better. If most of the other players at the table bought in for less and have smaller stacks, they'll think you're a big shooter if you sit down for the max buy in and they'll once again tend to show more respect for your raises.

This is especially true if you're playing outside of a casino. If you're playing in the local charity poker rooms we have all over Michigan, those rooms will tend to be full of players who don't have a lot of experience. A local charity room, especially in the smaller towns, is different from a casino. It's less daunting for the casual player and a lot of the players there are going to be guys who aren't very good but like to play poker with their buddies.

Most of the players in those rooms know each other and that makes the weak players feel comfortable playing there when they wouldn't have the courage to play in a casino poker room. And a lot of those players don't have a bankroll, so they'll just buy in for $50 or $60. They're playing on scared money. That, combined with the fact that they don't know you, means they tend to be easily intimidated.

The second thing I'll note is that the opposite can work well for you too. If you play aggressively when you first sit down and get a couple bluffs picked off, that can also work to your advantage more than it would in a game where everyone knows you. The key there is to play more conservatively than the table image you established early on, wait for strong hands and get paid off.

The key to all of this is the power of the first impression. When confronted by someone they don't know, the other players will try to size them up as quickly as possible. And once they've done so, they're much less likely to change that assessment. If you establish a tight, aggressive table image early on, it improves the value of your bluffs and allows you to steal more pots. If you establish a loose, aggressive table image early on, it allows you to get paid off on your strong hands because they'll assume you're still playing loose.

Either way, I like being the stranger at the table.

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Politics

Comments

1

This is a great example of strategic bargaining in cases of limited information with iterated play. I'd use it as an example in my political behavior class, except I don't have the foggiest idea what pocket jacks or a flop are.

Posted by: James Hanley | December 13, 2008 12:39 PM

2

Fascinating post, holmes! I wish I had time to play poker.

Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | December 13, 2008 12:52 PM

3

James-

It's not by accident that lots of poker players have an interest in game theory. That is exactly what goes on in such situations. Because the players at the table have very limited information about the new player, the value of the information they get early on in their observations takes on an exaggerated importance. If they see you play very tight, they presume you must be a tight player. Never mind that it may have nothing to do with that, that you may have just started with a string of awful cards and had to fold a lot. Or it may be that you decided intentionally to fold for the first half hour unless you picked up a monster hand so you could observe the other players. But that first impression really gets locked in and it's hard for them to shake it later on. A smart player will play against whatever table image they established in that first half hour or so.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 13, 2008 1:47 PM

4

You're certainly right about being unknown is an advantage. I have little doubt this helped Chris Moneymaker win the 2003 WSOP.

http://www.poker-babes.com/bio/chris-moneymaker/

Posted by: LightningRose | December 13, 2008 2:45 PM

5

Whoa! I haven't seen that much poker jargon in years.

I now feel like an intimidated neophyte ;-> who perhaps shouldn't be using poker as a metaphor here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-they-want-to-silence-us.html

Posted by: Norman Doering | December 13, 2008 5:57 PM

6

Should I be admitting this? Ah, nobody I play poker with will read it.

My first hour playing is always set-up time. Nothing better than "getting caught" bluffing. Oh, I shouldn't say this, but I'll bet against winning hands just to give the other guy false confidence. (Y'know, the guy who's money I take home at the end of the night.) Also, I play a very inconsistent game, the tight and loose thing, as the game progresses. It gives the impression of a lack of competence.

Such is the set-up. The kill, well, that's for me to know.

Cards, anyone?

PS Blackjack is a game of chance. Poker is a game of skill.

Posted by: kamaka | December 13, 2008 9:00 PM

7

Nice article.
One small correction - the fact that other players have more money than you on the table doesnt enable them to "bully" you in a cash game. If you have $100 - it basically shouldnt matter to you if they have $100 or $1,000. This is different than in a tournament where you get bullied by the big stacks because you are afraid of getting knocked out. Playing with a "short stack" in a cash game actually makes your decisions easier and makes it harder to bluff you.

Posted by: Pokermonk | December 13, 2008 9:00 PM

8

Alright, so...which two were the prisoners? I don't get it.

Posted by: Copernic | December 13, 2008 9:01 PM

9

Ed, you should play limit. There's nothing quite like the joy of having your aces cracked by the guy playing 3-8o...........

Posted by: EyeNoU | December 14, 2008 7:56 AM

10

Copernic, The prisoner's dilemma is but the tip of the iceberg in game theory.

Posted by: James Hanley | December 14, 2008 10:04 AM

11

James,
I am aware of that. Poor attemt at niche humor on my part.

Posted by: Copernic | December 14, 2008 11:56 AM

12

er...."attempt"

Posted by: Copernic | December 14, 2008 11:58 AM

13

Oh, forgive me. My humor meter must have been shut off (some would argue it's never on).

Posted by: James Hanley | December 14, 2008 2:40 PM

14

Pokermonk,

You can be bullied by a big stack in cash games, especially preflop. specifically at 1/2 where (in my experience in AC) the general preflop raise is around $10. If you only have 100 and the big stack of even 300 decides to raise it up more than 10 preflop, you have to throw away connectors or k10-type hands that you could call for less. Or if they;re behind you and decide to re-raise (unless you only raise with premium hands, a.k.a. the slow bleed) you will have to muck or risk at least 10% of your stack; where as they are only risking

One time in Windsor I was playing an average stack of 250 at 1/2 and the senior citizen, 2 seats before me with 2200, his standard raise was 30. I had in consecutive hands j9o, j8o, and 76s. He raised each time and i decided not to mess with him because he was volatile and i knew if i hit the flop i would be committed to making/calling a very large bet (every so often i will take someone like this on but he can absorb more beats that i can so i pick my spots). The flops for each hand were jj9, q109, and 777. Were it not for the big stack forcing me out i would have hit a huge hand on the first flop (the bully had 99) and would have doubled through him only to have the chips to call/raise the other two hands and be at least about 600.

I'm not saying you can't beat the bully; but even (and sometimes especially) in cash games the big stack bully can be a pain in the ass.

Posted by: ArunAtomic | December 14, 2008 4:39 PM

15

The 10/J bet I can understand, but all in on a flush draw with two others -- holding 5/9?

Totally agree with you about being the stranger, though. I'm sure I'm tighter against new players, which works to their advantage.

Posted by: itchy | December 15, 2008 9:56 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.