I Read An Interesting Article On Poker Psychology Today

[jmbreslin 0]

Smith G, Levere M and Kurtzman R (2009). Poker player behavior after big wins and big losses. Management Science 55(9): 1547-1555. In the article the authors examined millions of hands from three levels of NLHE cash play online: 50NL, 200NL, and 1000NL (if I recall correctly). Their conclusion was that at all levels of play, single large pots lost had a significant impact on the players, causing them to become both looser and more aggressive immediately following the loss. The theory supporting this finding is called the "break-even" model, whereby when gamblers suffer a big loss they adopt a strategy designed to get them back to even as quickly as possible. In poker this translates to playing more hands in the hopes of getting lucky and flopping big, and getting more aggressive in the hopes of pushing opponents off pots.I had a terrible 5NL Rush session last night, getting stacked 3 times. The first hand was a 2-outer bad beat, the second was a very unlucky turned underfull loss to a limped big pair and slowplayed flopped overfull, and the third one was a bad call for my stack on the turn. Although I wasn't playing loosely in that hand, there is certainly a distinct possibility that I subconsciously slipped into break-even thinking after getting stacked on the previous two hands, forcing me to make a bad call rather than thinking through the hand and making a disciplined decision.Discuss.

[lurbz 2]

I think you're an idiot.

[BaseJester 1]

I think this is true but well known.

[babylondonks 5]

I think this is true but well known.

[jmbreslin 0]

That's your input, lurbz? Seriously? If you don't think the topic is interesting then maybe you should just ignore the thread. You don't have to be a complete ass about it. And people wonder why interest in the FCP forums is dwindling...

[jmbreslin 0]

I think this is true but well known.

Anecdotally, maybe. But research often proves what we suspect or know anecdotally. I thought the article was interesting, but I guess I'm alone on this one.

[Fade2241 0]

And people wonder why interest in the FCP forums is dwindling...

Why are you defending your post with this garbage? This topic has been discussed and most people don't like regurgitating old stuff. Who cares how many people visit the forums ne more.

[aucu 3]

Why invent a term like "the break even model" seriously now people have been going double or nothing forever.Some tilt some clam up or even walk away after a big hit! duh, I wonder if this guy got government funding to do this ground breaking research.

[jmbreslin 0]

Why are you defending your post with this garbage? This topic has been discussed and most people don't like regurgitating old stuff. Who cares how many people visit the forums ne more.

What the ****, why do I even have to "defend" my post? I read an article I thought was interesting and posted the topic for discussion. I'm sorry if it has been discussed before, the article was just published in late 2009. One poster calls me an idiot for no reason, and when comment back I get you saying I'm "defending my post with garbage?" What the hell?

[jmbreslin 0]

Why invent a term like "the break even model" seriously now people have been going double or nothing forever.Some tilt some clam up or even walk away after a big hit! duh, I wonder if this guy got government funding to do this ground breaking research.

1) The authors didn't invent the term, they were referring to established psychological decision models to see which one could explain the phenomenon they discovered.2) Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but what their research showed is that the responses to a big loss aren't split - most players respond by becoming much laggier.

[CoolHandKai 0]

Why are you defending your post with this garbage? This topic has been discussed and most people don't like regurgitating old stuff. Who cares how many people visit the forums ne more.

Whatever happened to the golden rule? Whatever happened to "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."? If old topics are off limits, then close down this place right now - not everybody was around when things were talked about and so an old topic might still be interesting to new people. The hostility on here just for the sake of hostility is indeed quite baffling and I for one also think that the default should be to foster civilised discussion rather than seeing who can be the biggest ass in a given thread.If it's rehashed and boring and if someone feels compelled to post, why not say "This has been discussed before, please use the search function", rather than "I think you're an idiot."

[Sweet 0]

One poster calls me an idiot for no reason, and when comment back I get you saying I'm "defending my post with garbage?" What the hell?

I lol'ed for real. U funny!

[Fade2241 0]

What the ****, why do I even have to "defend" my post? I read an article I thought was interesting and posted the topic for discussion. I'm sorry if it has been discussed before, the article was just published in late 2009. One poster calls me an idiot for no reason, and when comment back I get you saying I'm "defending my post with garbage?" What the hell?

You chose to defend it - you could have simply ignored his comment. I am not defending lurbz calling you that but defending yourself with 'And people wonder why interest in the FCP forums is dwindling' is garbage because you're using the dropping level of forum traffic as an excuse for the fact you got called an idiot. What does forum traffic have to do with that at all? You act as if nobody comes here anymore because people get called names, etc when they post. That's just not the case. I'm sorry if i'm being a jerk by pointing that out. I don't have a problem with you posting this topic at all, just don't defend your posts with garbage like that. Ignore people who make comments like that and go about your business.

[jmbreslin 0]

You chose to defend it - you could have simply ignored his comment. I am not defending lurbz calling you that but defending yourself with 'And people wonder why interest in the FCP forums is dwindling' is garbage because you're using the dropping level of forum traffic as an excuse for the fact you got called an idiot. What does forum traffic have to do with that at all? You act as if nobody comes here anymore because people get called names, etc when they post. That's just not the case. I'm sorry if i'm being a jerk by pointing that out. I don't have a problem with you posting this topic at all, just don't defend your posts with garbage like that. Ignore people who make comments like that and go about your business.

The dwindling traffic on the forums is a fact. I was simply speculating that one possible reason might be that uncivilized exchanges and "flaming" cause some new posters to feel unwelcome and some experienced posters (like myself) to grow increasingly frustrated with the site. This issue has been discussed many times before, and I have previously been on the receiving end of some unnecessarily insulting responses to posts. I got involved in this site because I thought of it as a community of people who share a common interest and who engage in intelligent discussions about it and are willing to help others learn. Why would I want to keep coming back here if there is always the threat of being insulted when someone disagrees with me or thinks my post is uninteresting? Especially when the strat discussions have diminished due to the dwindling membership? The answer is I wouldn't want to - I'll go find another community. In fact I had fairly recently stopped visiting for several months but came back to give FCP a second chance.

[Syntonic 0]

You chose to defend it - you could have simply ignored his comment. I am not defending lurbz calling you that but defending yourself with 'And people wonder why interest in the FCP forums is dwindling' is garbage because you're using the dropping level of forum traffic as an excuse for the fact you got called an idiot. What does forum traffic have to do with that at all? You act as if nobody comes here anymore because people get called names, etc when they post. That's just not the case. I'm sorry if i'm being a jerk by pointing that out. I don't have a problem with you posting this topic at all, just don't defend your posts with garbage like that. Ignore people who make comments like that and go about your business.

You're an idiot.

[Balloon guy 158]

The OP really speaks to the immaturity to see poker as one long game, instead of a series of short sessions.Of course you will lose hands, you wouldn't expect to win every hand.Why shouldn't you expect to also lose a few hands in a row?You win a few hands in a row and you don't start wigging out about 'What's going on?'The real key in poker is to see the game for what it is, a long marathon race with ups and downs.Don't get emotionally invested, don't take it personal and as some one else said: "Think of yourself as a casino, if someone calls giving you a 60% edge, you should thank them, buy them a buffet, and invite them to come play some more" Not call them a donk and steam off 2 more buy ins with weak hands trying to suck out on him.I personally never get enough talk about playing wise as opposed to playing emotionally.

[jmbreslin 0]

Thanks Balloon guy, maybe we can have an intelligent discussion on the topic here after all...We know there is a disconnect for humans between what is the most rational way to respond to a situation and how we actually respond based on our emotions. My guess is if you interviewed the players in the study sample, most of them would probably respond very rationally and tell you they don't tilt and they have good control over their emotions. Then their play tells a different story.Even though the results of the study are not surprising, I still found them interesting and it did help me put my own play into context. It's like when you know something but don't truly realize it until someone makes it explicit. What was also interesting about the study was that the impact of losses was the same across levels of play, whether someone is playing 50NL or 1000NL.It does also suggest that even if you're not tilting or steaming at the table, the smartest thing to do after you lose a big pot is immediately take a break and come back to the tables when your mind is clear.

[Pivvy2001 0]

Thanks Balloon guy, maybe we can have an intelligent discussion on the topic here after all...We know there is a disconnect for humans between what is the most rational way to respond to a situation and how we actually respond based on our emotions. My guess is if you interviewed the players in the study sample, most of them would probably respond very rationally and tell you they don't tilt and they have good control over their emotions. Then their play tells a different story.Even though the results of the study are not surprising, I still found them interesting and it did help me put my own play into context. It's like when you know something but don't truly realize it until someone makes it explicit. What was also interesting about the study was that the impact of losses was the same across levels of play, whether someone is playing 50NL or 1000NL.It does also suggest that even if you're not tilting or steaming at the table, the smartest thing to do after you lose a big pot is immediately take a break and come back to the tables when your mind is clear.

I am not sure how the research supports your last statement. Presumably the research indicates that people do tilt or steam, not that even if you have control over your emotions you will play differently. There are players who truly roll with the punches and don't let a past bad beat defeat them or change their play. I am not one of them, but they do exist.

[I_fold08 1]

take a chill pill guy

[jmbreslin 0]

I am not sure how the research supports your last statement. Presumably the research indicates that people do tilt or steam, not that even if you have control over your emotions you will play differently. There are players who truly roll with the punches and don't let a past bad beat defeat them or change their play. I am not one of them, but they do exist.

The research doesn't actually address the issue of tilting or steaming, all it did was run a huge volume of hand histories through PT and found that players tended to play looser and more aggressive after losing a big pot. Sure some of those players might have been steaming at their computers. But for all we know, most of them could have been in control of their emotions but subconsciously changing their play because of the break-even mentality. So my point was that even if you're not tilting or steaming, it still might be a smart idea to step away from the tables.

[lurbz 2]

No, you're an idiot.That opinion comes from every post you've ever made, be that in strat, GenPo, anything. I really do think you're an idiot, in every sense of the word. Taking offense to people thinking your thread sucks just proves that further.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Dear lurbz,I hope someday you get yourself a redeeming quality.Best Wishes, JoeyJoJo

[lurbz 2]

Dear lurbz,I hope someday you get yourself a redeeming quality.Best Wishes, JoeyJoJo

Here let me paraphrase his post.

I read an article on how people tilt.Then I tilted.Discuss.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Here let me paraphrase his post.

Irrelevant

[Ko8e34 0]

Yeah pretty sure tilting isn't a new concept or one that goes too deep into psychology. You lose at gambling so you get pissed and want to make your money back so you play differently than you normally would. I mean is this ground-shaking news?Lurbz said exactly that but he handles stupidity a lot "meaner" if you will than anyone else.