Stereotypes

I've been writing an insane amount for only playing such a short session the other night. I guess that's just a sign of how much I've missed the game. I haven't had a chance to play again, so I've only been able to dwell on my observations and experiences from Wednesday. So here we go again ...
_ _

Mike Caro, in his book on poker tells, sparked a fair amount of controversy over a small section on playing opponents based on ethnic and gender stereotypes. To summarize, he came to the conclusion that if you don't have a good read on an opponent, it makes sense to evaluate his or her play based upon generalizations about their race or sex. To put it another way, he says that when all else fails, think about what a given group tends to do in a similar situation. Caro also mentions that stereotypes should be used only as a starting point, and that your evaluation of a player should change the second you have contradictory evidence about their behavior.

This last point notwithstanding, I'm sure can you imagine how people would read this advice as propogating racism and sexism. You can't just make racial generalizations in America and expect to get away without some kind of fallout. The following is a list of some of the more common stereotypes. Some of these are directly from Caro, and others are attitudes I've heard expressed in online forums.

1. Elderly players generally tend to be tighter. If they make a bet out of no where, they usually have a solid hand.
2. Same with female players.
3. White players tend to have better technical knowledge of the game, but are more predictable and easier to put on tilt. They believe poker is mostly a game of skill.
4. Latin American players are more prone to bluff, more likely to chase with weak draws and generally make plays based upon machismo. Usually pretty easy to beat.
5. Foreign-born Asian players are often the sharpest players, but also the loosest. In other words, they know what you're holding but will still chase with weak draws. They place a lot of emphasis on luck. In any given session they can either look like a genius or like a total donk.
6. African-American players tend to be gamblers. In other words, they are about the same as Asians, only without the hand-reading ability. They should typically be pretty easy to beat as well.

Quite a list, huh? I think for a lot of casino players, this kind of list can be unsettling because in a way it rings true. But it makes you feel a little guilty that you think that way.

Since I'm fairly familiar with Caro, it occurred to me at the Hustler that I was the only player at the table playing against my stereotype. [The only exception to this was the lone female at the table, who was pretty loose. But she left pretty early in my session.] All the other players, to some degree, fell into the categories as I have listed above. I was playing against my type, and I think it might have worked to my advantage (I'm black). I definitely got some loose action from players that wouldn't give me credit for a hand, at least early on. And while I highly doubt anyone else at my table had read Caro, I think to a certain extent they probably made certain assumptions about my play just naturally.

Where do I stand on this issue? Personally, I've been prejudged enough in my life to try and avoid doing it to others. But at the poker table, it's a different story. Obviously, if I have watched a player for a while and can get a sense of his or her tendencies, I'm going to rely on that data in evaluating their play. But if I'm forced to make a read on someone after just sitting down in a game with players I've never met before, I think it only makes sense to use stereotypes as a starting point. However, as Caro recommended, I will modify my read on a player once I have more information.

I see it like basketball in a way. There's kind of an unspoken rule when it comes to guarding individual players: never leave a white guy open on the perimeter, and never give a black guy a path to down the lane. This axiom is, of course, based on stereotypes. But the rule goes out the window once a black guy proves he's an accurate perimeter shooter or the white guy demonstrates his athleticism in the paint.

Because this stereotyping is so prevalent (though no one wants to talk about it), to a degree it becomes exploitable. Like Denzel winning an Oscar by playing against type in Training Day, you can win a lot of times by doing the opposite of what people expect you to do. I'll admit, that's kind of a stretch. But I'm sure you see my point. If opponents assume you are loose because you are green/blue/tall/short/dapper/unkempt/talkative/quiet then you can make larger value bets and raises against them and still get paid off. If your opponents think you're a rock because you are orange/purple/skinny/fat/smiling/frowning/smelly/aromatic -- you can bluff them more effectively. The idea is to know how your opponents view you, and use that knowledge to your advantage. Think of it as a literal interpretation of your table image. :-)

Let me give an example that I read elsewhere while researching this topic. "If eighty-five year-old Myrtle bets when the board pairs on the river when there was a flush draw possible... chances are, she ain’t bluffing. If a drunk, twenty-five year-old man who has a cuter-than-him girlfriend (not wife) sitting behind him bets in that same situation while taunting you “thanks for the money”... chances are, your pair of deuces are good."
_ _

Hope this was useful. And I recommend following the link I inserted in the text above. It's a pretty good discussion on the issue from Two-Plus-Two. You also might want to check out this link, in which Mike Caro defends his observations. The website contains the relevant excerpt as well, so you can see the original text.