Anyone who walks through Brown or Blackwell Commons, or any of the major fraternity houses will likely see hordes of people, most likely playing a variation of poker. Gambling on college campuses has now become a “relatively common and accepted leisure activity” (Gibson et al, 1997). When actually watching a game of Texas Hold’Em, different playing strategies become more apparent. While some players will “bully” others, by putting large amounts of money in to try and scare people out of pots, others will become fearful, and slowly, but surely, constantly lose money. How do you avoid being “a loser?” Research by Bryan Gibson, David Sanbonmatsu, and Steven Posavac shows that people often “gather…and integrate information in a manner that contributes to the verification of a… hypothesis.” Cognitive processing involves one’s train of thought when examining specific outcomes of a situation.  Gibson et al also conducted a gambling based experiment to show how people are more inclined to bet on a winning team if they think of the positive situations. This research shows that Duke students can better develop gambling strategies if they realize characteristics and rationalization techniques of poorer gamblers. One who gambles must come with a positive attitude, expecting to win, because, in the long run, persistence will prevail.

           

The Experiment

Gibson et al performed an experiment that includes a group of people who are asked to bet on a specific basketball game. One group is asked to think of all possible outcomes for a specific team to win, and then to give the percentage chance that they would bet on them. The control group is just asked to give the likelihood of betting on a random team, without first weighing outcomes. The cognitive processing involved is called selective hypothesis testing, which shows that people are more apt to gamble when they are thinking about a positive outcome, when they already have a “positive hypothesis” in mind. Results showed that those who were asked to think about positive outcomes were much more likely to bet on a winning team than those who are not asked to thing about any outcomes prove that those who think about positive outcomes are more likely to bet, and consistently examine positive strategies while betting each time.

 

Selective hypothesis testing in poker at Duke

            Texas Hold’Em is a variation of poker where each player is dealt two cards, and has the opportunity to bet, hoping for the best poker hand. After three communal cards are shown, all players still in can bet again. The same occurs after the fourth and fifth cards come. After the fifth communal card is shown and bets are made, the player with the best five cards (as the rules of general poker dictate) will win all of the money.

            The following is an excerpt from a Duke University conversation dated November 18, 2003. This example shows a typical conversation between two people with contrasting gambling strategies. Player one is an “individual [that] often over evaluate[s] past gambling outcomes (Gibson et al, 1997), whereas player two uses a selective hypothesis to believe to himself that he will win the money.            

Player 1: “I will make it 2.50 to go”

            Player 2: “I call”

            Others: “I Fold. Fold. Fold. Fold”

            Dealer: “Ok, this is heads up now, just you two in. Flop comes Ace, Eight, Ten”

            Player 1: “Check”

            Player 2: “Check”

            Dealer: “Turn comes, King of diamonds”

            Player 1: “Ill check”

            Player 2: “I will bet $10, I know I can take you.”

            Player 1: (pause) “I think I have you beat (pause)…but you could have two pair, or ‘trip’ eights…you’ve beaten me so many times before…I can’t call ten dollars, the pot is yours.”

             In this case, player two bought the pot (essentially, took player one’s two dollars and fifty cents) with a losing hand. Player one, despite thinking he won, could not bring himself to putting ten dollars on the line. Gibson would argue that player one’s decision was based off of his “tendency to overestimate the likelihood of hypothetical events.” In simple terms, player one had the ace and queen, being a very good hand, but perhaps the other player had the eight and picked up the king on the turn.  Player one thought he may be beat, by two pair, or maybe even 3 of a kind. Despite having a high quality hand, this player basically talked himself out of the hand. As Gibson’s research and experiment show, the person weighing positive outcomes is more likely to gamble, and ultimately win.

 How do you win poker hands? This is a question without an answer. However, the game of poker would be boring if everyone played by a single formula. No two humans think exactly the same, and this is shown in gambling as much as anything. Though shown to ultimately yield favorable results, biased processing of evidence may have negative effects on actual situations, as “Mr. Positive” may get himself into a hand where he is truly beat, and lose a lot of money. Contrastingly, “Mr. Negative” can’t win if he always talks himself out of playing a hand. Though statistics show that a positive attitude is necessary when playing cards, and will yield favorable results, competing cognitive processes inevitably lead to varying outcomes, and in some respects, are the reason that so many people play.  

 

 

Work Cited:

Gibson, Bryan, Sanbonmatsu David, Posovac, Steven. The Effects of Selective

Testing on Gambling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. Volume 3(2). 1997.