Anchoring and adjustment

[Henke]

Anchoring and adjustment is what psychologists call a cognitive heuristic. Basically, it means that people usually relate their decisions to a known or familiar point (or anchor it there) and adjusts from there. A bias is sometimes introduced, because the adjustments are not enough.

Kahneman and Tversky showed this by spinning a wheel of fortune, with numbers from 1-100. When the wheel stopped at a number x, they asked the research subjets if the percentage of african nations in the UN is higher or lower than x. Then the subjets were asked to estimate the correct number. The average answer when the wheel stopped at 10 was 25%, but when the wheel showed 65, the average answer was 45%.

Now, what has this to to with poker? Well, I've found that this bias influence my card reading ability quite alot! When I'm bluffing, I overestimate the probability that my opponent is also bluffing, and when I have a BIG hand, it seems more probable that my opponent also has something of value. It seems as though I'm being "anchored" at the strength of my hand.

I don't think this affects the experienced player much (if at all), but maybe it can help some fellow newbies [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Al Schoonmaker]

Thank you for teaching me something. I was unfamiliar with the term "anchoring," but was vaguely familiar with the tendency. For example, if we have a flush, we are more likely to think of how it will do against other flushes.
I agree with your point about newbies, but I would not be at all surprised if anchoring affects many experienced players, perhaps including me.
Regards,
Al

[James Boston]

Would this also apply to the tendancy to allow a specific hand's previous results to affect the way it is playes in the future? The other night, I lost with pocket quenns so many times that by the time they held up I had played them so timidly that there was hardly any money in the pot. I know this is wrong, but I had become so frustrated and "anchored" to the idea that QQ couldn't win for me that I played it incorrectly.

[Al Schoonmaker]

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that most of us can feel that way, even if we know that there is no factual basis for our feelings. The important thing is not to feel that certain cards or types of hands are lucky or unlucky. Nobody can completely control feelings. But we have to ignore any irrational feelings and play our cards properly.
Regards,
Al

[CrisBrown]

Hi Al,

<<The important thing is not to feel that certain cards or types of hands are lucky or unlucky. Nobody can completely control feelings. But we have to ignore any irrational feelings and play our cards properly.>>

Yes, to an extent, although sometimes our "unlucky" cards are "unlucky" because we're consistently misplaying them. If we're not sure how to correct that, the smarter move may be to avoid those "unlucky" cards until we know how to play them correctly.

A classic example, for me, is AQ in NLH tourneys. I went through a streak where AQ was the hand I went bust on in nine straight tournaments. On the one hand, yes, I thought AQ was "unlucky." (Several times I'd had the best of it and had been outdrawn.) On the other hand, I also knew the real problem: I didn't know how to play AQ properly.

But I wasn't sure what (exactly) I was doing wrong.

So I got overly cautious with AQ for awhile. It became a limp-call hand, not because it was "unlucky" but because I knew I didn't play it well and didn't want to invest much.

So ... if a certain hand seems to be "unlucky" for a given player, it's worthwhile to consider whether it's "unlucky" because the player is consistently misplaying it. If so, it might be worthwhile to back off the "unlucky" hand until you know how to play it well.

Cris

[Jedi Poker]

Al:

Is the term "anchor" that you and the original poster are talking about related to the conditioned stimuli that Pavlov introduced to the dogs in his famous stimulus-response experiments? I'm asking you this because a skill called "anchoring" is one of the first skills we learn to do in NLP. I'm curious if it's the same "anchoring" you and the original poster are referring to. As a referrence, I am providing you with the link below:

Anchoring article

Just curious if it's the exact same thing we at NLP are trained to do. Thanks.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Cris,
One thing I love about this forum is that I am constantly exposed to ideas that I had never thought about. I've never even considered your point that thinking certain cards are unlucky can cause you to misplay them. You're right, of course, this process has even got a name: Self-fulfilling prophecy. I've discussed it in other contexts, but never considered its relationship to poker.
Your suggestion also makes sense. If you're going to misplay certain cards, avoid them.
Thanks,
Al

[Al Schoonmaker]

Jedi,
Since I know nothing about NLP, I will comment only on your first question. It is not at all the same as anything in Pavlov's research. Pavlovian ("classical") conditioning involves the peripheral nervous system (the one that controls your heart, digestive system, etc.), and the original post referred to a "cognitive heuristic." The estimates they made were all thoughts, not automatic responses. Cognition occurs in the central nervous system.
Regards.
Al

[bigpooch]

There is a coincidental relationship between anchoring and
hand types in draw poker. If you hold a flush, it is more
likely (than normal) that an opponent holds a flush. The
same is true with quads, full house, trips, ... a pair and
even no pair. I am not sure about straights though and I am
too lazy to work out the mathematics for this case!

[CrisBrown]

Hi Al,

<<I've never even considered your point that thinking certain cards are unlucky can cause you to misplay them.>>

Ummm ... thank you for the kind words, but apparently I wasn't clear. I didn't say we misplay a hand because we think it's "unlucky," although that happens too. I said we may think a hand is "unlucky" because we don't know how to play it well and thus lose consistently with it.

Regardless, my feeling is that when you think a hand is "unlucky," it's time to take a long, hard look at how you play that hand, whether your expectations for it are realistic, whether the way you play it is weakening its potential, etc. Until you've done that, it may well be a good idea to back off on playing that hand.

Cris