Jay McCauley Article -- Representation Bias

[prayformojo]

This is one of the best articles I have read in the magazine since its launch. I don't think the author has dumbed his subject matter down (too much) for us, but has limited the article to a single theory and a brief discussion of its application, with minimal jargon. The topic is interesting and important, and the presentation is logical and concise.

On these boards, especially when dealing with online games, people (myself included) far too often fall into the trap of creating caricatures of our opponents to spare the trouble of finding motivation in apparently random and obviously poor play. This is not an enormous fault in games where the majority of opponents play in a predictably poor style, such as loose passive. We may be leaving some value out of our discussions, however, if we are ignoring motivations which in some players are unimportant to us (i.e. understanding those motivations does not increase our profit), but which when better understood could help us exploit other players' play.

I am looking forward to the next two, and hopefully more articles by Jay. If they are of the same quality, I can honestly say I hope to see a "Psychology of Poker 2" collaborative effort.

[DrVanNostrin]

I too thought this article was great. It explained everything well and cleared up a big misconception I know I had.

[kurto]

I thought the article was very interesting. Though I dont know that its provided any practical advice. In a small way, it might help humanize our opponents (particularly the ones whose biases we still don't understand).

Though I don't know that it has helped me understand the specific biases at play with the majority of opponents nor how to capitalize on them.

I'll give an example-
I was playing a Pokerstars Tourny with a hyper aggressive lag 2 seats to my left (who had me covered.. he was the big stack at the table). It was limped to me in the Big Blind and I found a pair of jacks so I raised it up. Note; I had been quiet in the game up to this point.

The LAG calls and the flop is a beautiful AJA. The Lag checks to me and I made just under a pot sized bet. The LAG now minraises me. I (laugh) and re-minraise him. He calls. The turn brings a rag... the LAG open pushes. I call. He flips over 4-7 suited (with no flush draw on the board).

He then says, "I thought you flopped a boat but couldn't understand why you bet nearly the pot."

My head was spinning... he thought I flopped a boat and decided to checkraise with air and on and on.

My point- I find opponents like this to be surprisingly common. I never pretend to understand what is going on in his mind or how he developed such an innapropriate bias. Other then getting opponents like him to pay me off when I hit monsters, I don't know how else to exploit his 'biases', as the article suggests, because I still cannot comprehend how such poor decisions are made. (Perhaps we call this the 'bluff bias'? ie- the belief that any hand and any opponent can be won just by bluffing)

Frankly, this subject matter is endlessly fascinating to me. I intensely crave to understand the thought processes of some of the horrific plays I see. Unfortunately, I'm not friends with any of these players so I don't get an opportunity to ask them there thoughts throughout the hand.

[Jay P McCauley]

Thank you to mojo for the kind review. As for kurto's post, I understand that most players want advice that is immediately applicable to poker play. I think you'll find that my next article (appearing May 1) has much more of that.

I think the behavoir of your LAG opponent can be readily explained in terms of the representative heuristic. When players flop a boat or trips, it is uncommon that they bet the pot. Your bet of the pot is much more representative of a stab, not a huge hand. He acted on that basis.

Here's some advice based on the example you gave: Against an opponent who is fully capable of just going with his reads (as opposed to most players who would say to themselves 'he has nothing' -- then fold), making a huge bet on a big flop/turn/river makes a lot of sense.

Best,
Jay

[unfrgvn]

I also really like this article. These two paragraphs in particular are pure gold:
[ QUOTE ]
Take it further. All huge bluffs are huge bets, though (again) not all huge bets are huge bluffs. So when you put a calling station all-in for his stack on the river in no-limit Texas Hold 'em, he probably does more thinking than good players are inclined to give him credit for. He compares the information he has: "This guy is making a huge bet." Then no matter what his cards, the calling station will ask, "Is he bluffing?" But whereas the good player will think about the entire logic of the hand and the tendencies of his opponent, the calling station simply asks, "Does this look like a bluff?" The answer, inevitably, is yes.

There is an interesting and counter-intuitive implication to the representative heuristic, which is often exploited by loose-aggressive types. Namely, that sometimes a big bet is more likely to get called than a small bet. Good loose-aggressive players knock tight players out of their comfort zone by putting those tight players into the calling station's state of mind. The tight player no longer feels comfortable making decisions based on the logic of the hand and probability. Instead, the tight player is constantly reduced to asking, "Is this a bluff?" For this reason, it sometimes happens that there is a curious inversion in which small bluffs fold tight players off mediocre hands ("she obviously wants and expects my call"), but large value bets get called by those same mediocre hands ("she either has a huge hand or nothing, and there are more ways for her to have nothing.")



[/ QUOTE ]

Looking forward to your next article.

[jfk]

I've thought about and reread this article more than any the Magazine has offered in the several years I've lurked on this forum.

I'm still stymied in coming up with an appropriate observation to show my appreciation.

Very much looking forward to the May contribution.

[killphilNI]

I have really enjoyed both articles in this series and I am looking forward to hearing you opinion the the rest of the decision making heuristics. I studied some psychology at university and an understanding of these concepts helped me understand just how much table image comes into players decision making at the table. Your first two articles have added to my understanding of decision making and its application to poker, thank you.

Do you have any plans to cover other psychological topics? I would love to hear your take on personality types, personality traits and the five robust factors. For those not familiar, there are five main factors in personality: Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism (OCEAN).

[mwa]

My thanks to Jay for an excellent article.

I often wonder what effect the order of the flop in holdem has on the subsequent decisions that people make. For example if the flop is Jd 5d 6s, will some people give less thought to the flush draw possibility than if the flop is laid out as 6s Jd 5d?
I'm not sure if this is in anyway related to representation bias, but it seems as if some people act on visual patterns when making a decision. Although the flop mentioned is identical in content, I believe the pattern of the flop may lead some people to act in different ways than logic suggests you should act.
Sorry if this is way off base. Thanks again for the great article, looking foward to reading more.