Appearance and Poker

[Flushed]

Hi Everyone,

I am a psychology major and an amateur poker player. This thread has been particularly interesting to me.

From psychological perspective, there are two distinct categories of consequences when it comes to appearance at the table: the effect appearance has on the player himself and the effects on other players (i.e. table image). Some of the posts confuse the two, rather then considering them independently and then examining the interaction between the two.

There are no studies examining the effects of appearance on decisions made in games, as far as I know. Some studies do show that casual business attire has no effect on employee behavior and very little effects on their attitudes. In theory, we should separate appearance from self-image: the two are not necessarily related. Self-image tends to be fairly stable, and a change of clothes does not alter your general perceptions of self (e.g. I am weak vs. I am strong). If you are a tight-weak player, there are not enough Armani suits in the world to make you aggressive. What changing physical appearance (i.e. clothing, make-up, etc.) can do is activate traits that are less pronounced under normal circumstances or activate types of schemas. For example, wearing a business suit should activate the schema/script of being at work and acting as a professional, hence if you associate professionalism with emotional detachment and calculation, then while dressed in this manner, you will be more likely to make less emotional/more calculating decisions. The table becomes you work place. On the other hand, if you associate tennis shoes/sweat pants with lounging around in front of a television set, then you will not be able to focus while wearing this ensemble: you are conditioned to become intellectually lazy while wearing it. Think of it as switching between social roles/identities. Once again, the difference between self-image and appearance is in the magnitude of effect: clothing will not change how you think of yourself globally, but it can potentially activate certain types of behaviors. In addition, note the subjectivity of this influence: different individuals have different associations attached to particular brands of clothing, along with comfort levels, and so forth. If you feel uncomfortable in business attire, then not only will this distract you from optimal play (i.e. cognitive processing), but it will fail to bring about the professional conduct you hope to achieve. The bottom line is that you should wear what makes you feel comfortable and professional; in many cases, that will entail being well-groomed, shaved, and sporting a pair of slacks. On the other hand, if you can feel professional in a sweat suit and a baseball cap, then go ahead and wear that.

The second part of this debate concerns the effect of your appearance on other players at the table. I did cite a study to one of my friends where subjects were more likely to bet against the less attractive, badly-dressed, slouching male in an even money proposition involving cards. The essential part of this appearance manipulation is not fashionable clothing or polished shoes: it is conveying confidence, competence, and the overall look of a "winner." People don't want to bet against "winners"; they want to go up against "losers." It is difficult to convey that you are a "winner" if you haven't showered for a week and covering your greasy hair with a hat. However, that does not in any way imply that you should sport Armani. The clothing can be average (i.e. ironed, clean, somewhat up-to date), but how one wears this attire is essential. One cannot look competent while looking uncomfortable in three-piece suit, no matter how expensive; on the other hand, sitting casually in a dress shirt, unbuttoned and looking relaxed does convey confidence. Body language trumps clothing, provided the latter is not extreme. Think about it this way: if you were judging how tight a player is by his appearance, are you more likely to consider his buttoned-up shirt and tie or the fact that he is sitting up very straight on the edge of his seat, looking tense? I understand that in the poker world there is a stereotype of a shark: the guy who never leaves the card room, who doesn't care how he looks, etc. But we have to weigh that against our society-conditioned stereotypes of what "winners" and "losers" act and look like. Plus, let's not forget that several pros do wear expensive watches and nice clothes (e.g. Farha).

[CrisBrown]

Hi Flushed,

I'm not a psych major, so this is just my two bits:

(a) Wear what you're comfortable wearing. Phil Ivey does awfully well in basketball jerseys over t-shirts, though he does spruce up for WPT final tables. Other professionals dress garishly, or nattily, or casually ... *shrugs* ... I don't think there's any magic to what you wear except that you need to be comfortable.

(b) Other players' dress is a weak but sometimes useful EARLY tell. However, if after 15-20 minutes you're still basing your read on how someone is dressed, you're making too much of too little.

Cris

[LetsRock]

Cris's response is right on the money.

Appearance (dress) to others (good players) at a poker is no factor other than an early "tell" indicator. I look more at if the player appears to be comfortable in the environment, not his/her clothes.

If someone comes in all rigid and nervous looking, I know they're probably out of their environment regardless if they're in a tux or beachwear. If someone immediately makes themselves at home, I know they at least have spent some time at a table.

Now it is possible for one's dress to affect their own comfort level. Put me at a poker table (well pretty much anywhere for that matter) in a suit and I will be visibly uncomfortable.

I think that this would be the biggest influence that someone could derive from the value of "dress for success" in poker: Dressing to be comfortable (whatever comfortable is for YOU) will give you the best chance to be at the top of your game and others (who pay any attention to such things) will see that you are comfortable and grant you appropriate respect until other factors dictate otherwise.

To less experienced players, "dress to impress" may be a bigger factor. If a guy wanders in looking and acting like James Bond some weaker players may be intimidated. These same players would also tend to assume that the "Grandma" is just ripe for the picking. But these stereotype factors aren't a factor for players with a little experience.