The Sociology of Poker?

[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

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.