My latest poker strategy article for Two Plus Two Magazine, Poker is Not a Chest Beating Contest, addresses one of my favorite subjects, which is language and how it shapes the way we think:
“Poker lingo is full of bluster and bravado. For some, the colorful language and the opportunity to spin dramatic narratives about aggression and courage is an important part of the game’s appeal….
I also suspect, though, that all these macho turns-of-phrase and bellicose metaphors obscure the mathematical side of the game. It often seems to me that players who worry about “defending” their big blind, or getting “bullied”, are more concerned about damage to their ego than to their expected value.”
Of course it’s not just about language; there’s plenty of strategy content as well! Please have a look and let me know what you think. Do you enjoy turning your poker game into a story of bravery and bravado? Do you find these kinds of metaphors particularly helpful or unhelpful?
That article rocked! Seriously. It was like it was written for me! As a woman in a mans world who has had different struggles with living in a mans world at different points of time in life, I think my ego gets the better of me in hands because of not wanting to appear “weak”. I do think this word is a negative and I’m going to focus on removing it from my lingo. Exploitable maybe…weak no.
Thanks, Elaine, that’s very heartening to hear. To be honest, I was thinking of all this ego stuff as more of a “man problem” – it makes sense, but hadn’t occurred to me, that many women feel pressure not to play into stereotypes about weakness, passivity, etc.
Was the irony of pairing your article with Ray Zee’s piece about “protection” intentional? Having read your piece, I thought his came off pretty badly, actually.
Nope, I had no idea what he was writing, and I’d be astonished if he had any idea what I was writing. I actually haven’t read his yet, but I’m flattered to be compared favorably to him – he was an early poker/writing hero. Thanks!
I liked this. A lot people seem to think you can only exploit in one direction but you can exploit sub-optimal play in either direction whether actively by responding to what you’ve noticed or passively (playing balanced but picking up equity here and there when villains don’t play their hands the best way e.g. whether they’re failing to bluff or betting a hand that can only be called by better and is already ahead of the hands it folds out – you sometimes don’t know which it will be if any but you just wait for them to do something that is -EV for them and therefore +EV for you).
A connected idea is the fondness some players seem to have for making “advertising plays” – so they think “I’m going to play really spewy at the start so they later call me down light” as if there is only one way to exploit and you need to get the other players into that way of playing.
I think the article applies less to SNGs. I play 5-max SNGs and on the 3-handed ICM bubble you almost always want to get left alone rather than flip with another player – only to the benefit of the third player who locks up 2nd place money watching the hand from the sidelines. So you definitely don’t want people to make the mistake of calling you lighter than they should because it’s not just -EV for them but its also -EV for you too and its +EV for the 3rd player.
Thanks, Richard. You’re right there are actually some exceptions to my argument about image not mattering, particularly in tournament situations where the results of a particular hand are not zero-sum for the two players involved in that hand.
Very funny.
The subject and content of your article supposed to be: language and how it shapes the way we think – the notion that language may impart different cognitive abilities (without our knowledge or consent).
The content of your article is full of evidence to the contrary notion-dogma that the language just express thoughts.
“It often seems to me that players who worry about “defending” their big blind, or getting “bullied”, are more concerned about damage to their ego than to their expected value.””
Hi Andy, glad you’re still around. I don’t think the quote you include here expresses anything about causality one way or the other, just that there’s a correlation between players who think in terms of ego and those who use aggressive metaphors. I actually suspect the causality goes in both directions, but I do think that stepping away from these metaphors, or at least recognizing them for what they are, can lead to better decision-making, which is the real point of the article.
Before I started your article I had big expectation that you will show me evidence how language shapes the way we think – the notion that language may impart different cognitive poker discoveries (without our knowledge or consent).
Sorry after reading your article I did not find anything related to this notion.
The real point of the article seems to be an increase situational awareness-the perception of environmental elements(narration) .
To be more specific just one aspect of SA which is the comprehension of their meaning.
EGO is the core thought censor and filter all thoughts stream.
When I think about you my ego always remind me that you live San Francisco.
I spend 2 months in SF and I envy you the weather and the place.