Chip Psychology: Size Counts / By Arthur S. Reber
|
Chips play several important psychological roles in poker. No, I am not taking
about how big stacks express power and control, and I certainly won't go down
any Freudian pathways --- you know, like psychoanalyzing male players who like
to stack their chip in high towersU
I am going to be totally serious here. There are various aspects of the play of
any game of poker that turn on such factors as how many chips are on the table,
how many are used to make a standard bet and the disparity between stack sizes
of players at a table. Each of these factors has a distinctly different
psychological impact in limit games compared with and no-limit games and in cash
games versus tournaments. Let's take a look at two of the most obvious ways
chips affects the game.
1. Stack size: Everyone knows that stack size is a critical factor in no-limit
play, whether we're talking about cash games or tournaments. If I have you
covered in a cash game I can break you in a single hand. If it's a tournament, I
can dispatch you to the rail in a similarly abrupt manner. If it's a cash game,
of course, you can dig in your pocket and re-load (as you can early on in rebuy
tournaments) but I will have gained a big advantage over you and my EV for the
session has gone up relative to yours.
|
|
Larger stack sizes increase potential wins (and losses too, of course). There
are few things more frustrating than sitting there with the nuts with two
opponents drawing dead and, because you failed to replenish your stack, have no
claim to the ever-growing side pot. We've all seen countless examples of weak
players who deprive themselves of opportunities to recover.
There are other, more psychologically sensitive elements also operating here.
Suppose you are new to a table. If you're like me, one of the first things you
do is to take stock of the stack sizes of each of the players. You note whose
chips would fit in a demitasse cup and whose could be used for the foundation of
the new casino going up down the block. This information is critical in terms of
how you will play in the next couple of hours, particularly in how you approach
a hand with these people and their respective stack sizes.
But, if you're like me, this assessment also carries with it a variety of more subjective elements. It is hard not to suspect that the folks with the big stacks are better players and the ones with the little bitty piles are the fish. We all know this is a dangerous generalization and we try not to let it affect our play, but affect it, it does. Over time we may make adjustments in how we assess the skill levels of the other players but our initial impression is almost certainly going to be colored by this "stack size" factor --- and if there is one thing that has come out recent psychological research, first impressions can be lasting and surprisingly resistant to change.
|
|
Barry Tanenbaum, a solid player and tutor whose game is respected around the
poker world, counsels the "rapid reload." He maintains that it is suicidal to be sitting behind a short stack. It makes you look vulnerable, weak. He points out that short stacks, whether you are in a cash game or a tournament invite attack. They become candidates for some heavy pushing from their opponents. Small stacks invite aggression from others at the table, something you never want to do.
Moreover, we all know that we play better poker when we are winning than losing.
Big stacks are associated with winning and the emotional tone of mountains of
chips affects everyone at the table. Even if you are losing, you are likely to
play a better game if you keep a respectable number of chips in front of you
than if you let yourself get ground down to just a few. And, of course, those
new players coming in will tend to see you as a solid player, even if you're
getting smacked around the room. So, reload when you can, it aids in the
intimidation factor
The chip-stack factor, interestingly, is one of the few psychological aspects of
poker that is more important in limit play than no-limit --- at least in low-
and mid-level games. In no-limit games you are usually limited in the size of
the initial buy-in, typically to 100 times the big blind. If you arrive at a $2
- $5 no-limit game anyone at the table with less than $500 in front of them is
likely (although not necessarily) losing on the session and someone with two
dimes stacked up is almost certainly way ahead. These patterns are not so
obvious in limit play. In fact, after talking with Barry about this, I adjusted
my strategy. Now, when I play no-limit I always buy in for the maximum. When I
play limit I buy in for a lot more than the conventional wisdom recommends (20
big bets, as per Sklansky's classic suggestion) and quietly reload if my stack
gets whittled down.
|
Fair Poker Bonus Code: paris (50% up to 500 $) |
2. Chip denomination: You wouldn't think this is an issue (after all, 25 bucks is 25 bucks so who cares if there's a single green check or five redbirds sitting there), but it is. A huge pile of $5 chips makes for more action than a small one of green and black chips, even if the amount of money is the same. The Tropicana in Atlantic City spreads what has famously become known as the "pink" game because it uses only $2.50 pink chips. If someone comes in with a stack of chips of other denominations, players will howl in protest until they go exchange them for pink chips. The game is played at $7.50 - $15.00 limits but it plays bigger than any $10 - $20 game I have ever seen. In fact, dealers call bets by the number of chips not the money, "three chips to call," "raise, twelve chips in".
Similarly $20 - $40 games with $5 chips play bigger than $25 - $50 games with
$25 chips; $75 - $150 games with green chips play bigger than $100 - $200 games
that use all black chips. There is something very meaningful, even intimidating
about putting out two stacks of three for four chips each that just isn't
captured by a single chip tossed on the felt. There is something satisfying
about sitting behind a castle of molded clay that isn't conveyed by a tiny
stack, even if both stacks will buy the same amount of groceries.
Of course, you may not want things to get really nuts. At BARGE (an acronym for
Big August Recreational Gamblers Excursion) the participants love to play an
all-white chip game. I've seen players sitting behind literal mountains of white
chips, sometimes in excess of a thousand. In fact, one year the casino ran out
of $1 chips because so many of them were sitting in the poker room. But BARGE'rs
tend to be a little crazyU
In tournaments this issue also plays a role. As the number of players goes down and the blinds and antes go up, the tournament directors will "color up" the remaining chips, taking those of smaller denomination off and replacing them with more valuable chips. This move has to be made or the number of chips becomes unwieldy and betting gets cumbersome, but in many tournaments it is done too quickly. There is a distinctly dispiriting feeling to leaving on a break with a dozen or more towers of chips only to return and find that each lovely stack of twenty $25 chips has been replaced with a single disk with $500 written on it and those empowering mountains of $100 chips are all now sitting in pathetic stacklets of some oddly colored plastic.
|
Tony G Poker Bonus Code: POKERBLUFF |
In my experience, these premature color-ups hurt the game. Players fail to
appreciate their true stack size. They take risks and make ill-advised calls. It
is almost as though they begin to regard a chip as "just a chip" rather than treating each with the monetary respect it deserves. And even if you are able to keep in mind the true value of the chips in use, it is still more difficult to play a solid tactical game under these conditions.
I have talked with several tournament directors about this. They mainly turn a
deaf ear. I suspect that they are very much aware of the effect of coloring up
early and like it. From the house's point of view, it is a good thing for it
tends to end the tournament faster opening the tables up for cash game play.
So, in summary, there really is a psychology of the poker chip. In fact, there
are several other aspects that I don't have room for, like the simple fact that
chips don't look or feel like "real" money and, yup, those psychoanalytically tinged towers that guys like to buildU Maybe next time.
Arthur S. Reber is a poker player and author of books and columns on poker and gambling. He wrote The New Gambler's Bible and co-authored Gambling for Dummies. In his other life he is Broeklundian Professor of Psychology, Emeritus at Brooklyn College and The Graduate Center of CUNY and author several score scientific articles and books in cognitive psychology.
|
|
