The Sociology of Poker?

[carddown]

I'm looking for a book or article on the group dynamics of Poker. Is there a Sociology book that covers anything similar?

The closest model I can find for the game is pack behavior in predatory animals- who are also, you know, cannibals.

CardDown

[xxx]

Probably too small for what you are looking for, but there is a section in Ace on the River called poker society.

[theweatherman]

poker is much more of a lone wolf type activity. You weed out hte weakest player and gun for them. If youuse other s to help you find the weakest player than thatis just fine, but always in the backof your mind there is the idea that I am in this for myslef. At the end of the day its my bankroll that matters, and such I will fight anyone that comes in my way.

I see no pack oriented ideals at all.

[carddown]

Weatherman, I was mostly kidding about the pack analogy, but there are some similarites. You are right about the players uniting to pounce on the weak, but sometimes there is also pack-like behavior in other situations, like when the whole table rolls over in submission to the boss dog by refusing to call him. There usually is a pecking order established at a table, and it is not always based on stack sizes alone. Some players assume dominance by reputation alone, others try to establish it by "strutting" with an imposing table image, or with loud banter or aggressive betting. The table captain role is an easy one to identify, I'm also interested in the roles other players take at the table and the struggle for dominance within a group of people in competition.

CardDown

[soko]

If sombody to write a book about exactly what you just posted it would be so freaking common sense I would probally fall asleep after the first few pages. Bascially you just wrote the entire book minus the 100 pages of filler material it would require to have something actually considered a book on the topic.

[four eight suited]

Clearly a VERY shortsided view of sociology is held by your responders to this post. I think its funny that a forum filled with psychology responses would snub the whole field of sociology like that. You ever notice those tables where everyone is always limping in? You think everyone individually has rationally decided that they want to limp in to every pot? I think this has great relevance to the Asch conformity experiments. Poker tables, while certainly filled with unique individuals, clearly have a certain group dynamic to them, thus are well within the realm of sociology.

How about Erving Goffmans Dramaturgy theory? It is essentially described by the 'all the world's a stage and all of us are merely actors' quote. It would describe how players fit into their roles as TAGs or LAGs or weak/passive or whatever.

Hundreds of pages could easily be written applying many of salient theories concerning the Symbolic Interactionist perspective and their application to the poker society and even to individual tables.

I think mike caro might think there is some significant sociology occuring at the poker table. How could he possible group players so accurately into so few models? While controversial, mike offers a depiction of player types by race, an approach taken by many sociologists.



Maybe not so common sense? Sorry, kinda defensive about the whole sociology thing, sure it was easy major at duke, but I guess I learned a few things too.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Nicely stated. In "Ace on the River," Barry Greenstein says that traits of winning players include being greedy and self-centered. Traits of losers include compassion. Poker is a predatory game: The strong eat the weak.

Regards,

Al

[JohnnyHumongous]

[ QUOTE ]
Nicely stated. In "Ace on the River," Barry Greenstein says that traits of winning players include being greedy and self-centered. Traits of losers include compassion. Poker is a predatory game: The strong eat the weak.

Regards,

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really depressing.

[ QUOTE ]
Nicely stated. In "Ace on the River," Barry Greenstein says that traits of winning players include being greedy and self-centered. Traits of losers include compassion. Poker is a predatory game: The strong eat the weak.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's kind of a radical synopsis - Greenstein clearly doesn't go in for the "merciless assassin" ideal.

For example, Greenstein says several times in the book that a good player makes the "live ones" feel good about playing, so they'll play more, including quitting before you clean them out if need be.

[carddown]

I appreciate the replies, but I haven't found the tidy little package that I was hoping for. Much has probablly been written on what I'm interested in, but from a different perspective, as table image and player types . Any suggestions on where to find superior coverage of those topics?

Thanks,
CardDown

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate the replies, but I haven't found the tidy little package that I was hoping for. Much has probablly been written on what I'm interested in, but from a different perspective, as table image and player types . Any suggestions on where to find superior coverage of those topics?

Thanks,
CardDown

[/ QUOTE ]

Psychology of Poker, by Al Schoonmaker.

[Dan Mezick]

There is much more to this excellent question. The "group dynamics" of poker is very real.

Not quite the same as competing with a crowd, not quite the same as competing against a team, not quite the same as competing against a single individual, poker incorporates aspects of both interpersonal and crowd dynamics.

Topics for development:

1. Leading. To lead, find a table that acts like a crowd.(page 139)

[ QUOTE ]
As soon as a certain number of living beings are gathered together, they place themselves instinctively under the authority of a chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

2. Following. A crowd wants to be led. Give them what they want. (page 141)

[ QUOTE ]
Men gathered in a crowd lose all force of Will, and turn instinctively to the person who possesses the quality they lack.

[/ QUOTE ]

3. Obtaining leadership (dominance). How taking control of the table aligns the followers. (page 140)

[ QUOTE ]
The crowd is a servile flock that is incapable of ever doing without a master.

[/ QUOTE ]

4. How a single player can change everything by cultivating personal prestige at every turn. (page 154)

[ QUOTE ]
Personal prestige is a faculty independent of all titles, of all authority, and possessed by a small number of persons whom it enables to exercise a magnetic facination on those around them, although they are socially their equals, and lack all ordinary means of domination. They force the acceptance of their ideas and sentiments on those around them, and they are obeyed.

[/ QUOTE ]


5. Winning large pots creates the potential to assume total authority at the table. (pages 149, 152)

[ QUOTE ]
It is by examples and not arguments that crowds are guided.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Prestige in reality is a sort of domination.

[/ QUOTE ]

6. You lose more than money when you lose a large pot(page 161)

[ QUOTE ]
The hero who the crowd acclaimed yesterday is insulted today should he be overtaken by failure. The reaction indeed will be the stronger in proportion as the prestige has been great. The crowd in this case considers the fallen hero an equal, and takes its revenge for having bowed to a superiority whose existence it no longer admits.

[/ QUOTE ]

See:

The Crowd. by Gustave LeBon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486419568/qid=1129323413/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1589185-6325511?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Date of publication: 1895.

[sholvar]

I saw this things on many tabes, many times before.
If you win often, they will fold to nearly every bet you make. You can bluff and bluff and bluff. But if anyone catches you on only one hand, doenst matter how big your winning chances with this hand was, that you loose, they only think: hey he bluffed us all the time. If he bets ore raises we must call and you get so much -EV calls and nearly no chance to get someone out who sees the flop with you.


These crowd-phenomenons are very interesting in my oppinion. But I like multitabling and if you multitable you cant take some care of your respectfactor on one table or maybe on each...

Does any of this apply to online play?

I don't see any of it going on at the tables I play at, myself. Then again, I play at low stakes loose tables with players popping in and out every 5 minutes. I think they're barely aware that anyone else is at the table with them, and are just playing their own cards.

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]
Does any of this apply to online play?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the OPs question is actually more one of group psychology than sociology really. The difference in my mind really being like the microcosmic scale of a poker game. What you have isnt so much sociological roles but individuals reacting to other individuals.

I think anyone whose put allot of hands in online can definately attest that the 'mood' of a table is definately not a static thing and can change fairly dramatically with the introduction of a single trouble maker.

I think the line between reacting to a single players style and more of a group dynamic shift is a pretty subtle thing. Anyone who is making judgement decisions is definately going to be affected by the players and combinations of players often without having insight into this.

I think its really hard to say when this tendancy becomes something usefull to us. Sometimes you just get a feel of the table and while your always a slave to ev your forecasts and estimates are definately tied to whats going on around you. I think this is much more so in shorthanded play.