[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a sense, the "winning" player is experiencing a kind of risk-aversion tilt that can be exploited just like the risk-seeking tilt of the "losing" player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes yes yes -- good insight.

Similarly, a form of tilt may be simply playing fewer hands simply because the player has booked a win and wants to keep it that way. I know I'm often guily of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "winning player's tilt" would be true near the upper bend in the S-curve - where each chip won gains significantly less utility in the mind of the player than each chip lost would lose in perceived utility.

This bend in the S-curve at the upper and lower ends are critical points to identify in yourself, but probably even more important to identify in others. These are points of vulnerability where players will make decisions in which their sense of expected value will be skewed by the great difference in perceived utility between chips lost and chips won.

For example, if a player puts player X on a range of hands against which he has 25% equity (3:1), and he has to call an all-in getting 3.5:1 pot odds, then a player at the center of the S-curve would think, then call. Players at both extremes of the S-curve would call. But players on the bends would have very different reactions.

The player on the losing side at the bend on the left would call because the chips potentially lost would have less "negative utility" than the chips potentially won would have "positive utility." In fact, the player at the left bend would probably call if the pot odds were only 3:1 or even 2:1.

The player on the winning side at the bend on the right would fold because the chips potentialy lost would have more "negative utility" than the chips potentially won would have "positive utility." In fact, the player at the right bend might fold if the pot odds were as high as 4:1 or maybe even 5:1.

Another interesing note about the S-curve is that it helps explain why people often try to go up limits to "win back" big losses. If a player loses multiple buy-ins, but still has some bankroll available, he might reach a mental state near the flat end of the left side of the S-curve. At that point, 1 buy-in either way still doesn't alter his perceived utility per chip. However, if she doubles or triples the stakes, now a potential loss still results in the same negative perceived utility per chip as when she started the hand, but a potential win at higher stakes would catapult her past the lower bend in the cure to where the perceived utility of each potential chip won is worth significantly more than the perceived utility of each chip lost. The chance of quickly getting back onto the steep slope of that utility curve becomes quite compelling to somebody on the flat left corner of the curve.

Expected value calculations, "EV," assumes a linear relationship in which every chip won or lost at any amount at any moment has an equal utility. For example, the 100,000th chip won is identical in EV calculations as the 1st. But most people don't think about their chips that way. The S-curve makes more sense for how people behave during the course of a session, and even over the course of several sessions if they are on a streak (up or down). And understanding how people behave along that curve gives, especially at the inflection points, gives you an edge over people unaware of their shifting sense of utility per chip.