The Poker Table as a Skinner Box

[AlanBostick]

Does the stimulus and response of playing many hands of poker reinforce any particular style or styles of playing through a process like operant conditioning?

If so, does poker do so in as simple a manner as "if you play poker for reason X, the playing style that gets reinforced is style Y"?

I've been wondering about this and similar things lately. I don't know very much about behavioral psychology or operant conditioning.

Imagine tight-aggressive player getting a bunch of good hands in close succession, pushing them hard, and losing all of them. This player then starts driving other hands hard, and losing with them, too. After spewing a bunch of chips, the player rebuys, and now plays much more passively, more weak-tight ... and the other players take ruthless advantage of it, and our hero loses even more.

Have we just witnessed an 'extinction burst' of tight-aggressive play?

That probably happens with weaker players that have no fundamental understanding of the game. Stronger players will be able to recognize their bad beats as variance. This is also why it is recommended you take a break once in a while toreview your play.

[DCWildcat]

This is a great topic, and I'm glad you brought it up.

I like your example of extinction burst, though I don't think we could necessarily attribute the TAG's pushing of crappy hands to it. Frustration alone, independent of extinction burst, could have to do with it. Loss of focus, numbing, etc. could contribute. While these are symptomatic of extinction burst, they could just be acting independently.

As a whole, if our poker playing followed operant contingencies, we would all be screwed. Why? Because good decisions often go unrewarded or even punished, and poor decisions often go unpunished or even rewarded. The fall of the cards is random, but our brains can't comprehend that. To them, when hitting gutshot on river after calling getting 2 to 1 -> reinforcement, our probability to engage in that behavior, by definition, increases.

This means, above all else, you are forced to trust your reasoning. One of the reasons I scoff at people who play by "instinct" is that they are, more often by not, playing by what's been reinforced and punished in the pass, and thus are likely to make poor decisions, as explained above.

Good topic choice man.

there is always hope for spontaneous recovery after the extinction of the tight-aggressive play.

its interesting to apply behavioral principles to poker on the micro level, I am sure after a couple bad beats you might play a little more passive, but I doubt it has effects on your overall game (macro level).

And I think we cannot forget about observational learning and its influence on our own reinforcement schedule. say we do suffer some consistant loses, but notice others being rewarded for similar plays. That would certainly dampen the strength of the punishment previously experienced.


Ill have to think about this some more. Partially cause i like poker, but mainly because I dig the skinner and am taking a seminar on him this spring.