Why Do People Play Cards More Aggressively Online?

I am a big fan of two rather different card games. Spades is a partner game that involves bidding, trumping, and taking tricks, while Texas hold 'em is a game of betting and shared board cards. Yet they have something in common: people play both a lot more aggressively online than they do in person.

In live tournament poker, it's usually two players to the flop and only rarely three. Many pots go to the lone raiser before the flop uncontested. Online players are much looser, and pots involving four players are more common. Online poker is also home to more "calling stations," or players who can't be bluffed off a marginal hand.

In spades, each player begins with 13 cards, so there are 13 tricks to be had in each hand. Online play is full of 12 and 13 bids, which can net players the most points but also put them in the most danger of being set. Live play, in contrast, has a greater share of 9 and 10 bids, where making the bid is safer and the game becomes an art form of avoiding bags.

The tendencies of online players are generally losing propositions. Conservative poker players rarely play more than 10 to 15% of their starting hands; play many more than this without an extremely solid post-flop strategy is asking for trouble. And players who routinely stretch their bids can be goaded into getting set if the other team underbids.

Perhaps online players aren't as skilled or aren't paying as close attention as live players. In poker, there's often much less on the line: players can enter online tournaments for a few dollars, while the buy-in for a live event is often around $100. So reckless play doesn't quite cost as much.

However, I would argue that to some extent, we all play more impulsively online, because of the web's anonymity.

In poker, there are certain situations where the pot odds dictate that you should call a bet on the river with just an ace high. This is much easier to do if you can hide behind a screen name than if you have to sit at a table full of people laughing at you after the hand and saying, "You called with ... what?!?"

In spades, I'll attempt a more borderline nil when paired with an anonymous stranger than I would with a friend I play with regularly. If it doesn't work out online, I can just leave the table in disgust with no real consequences, but in person, I might have to deal with a frustrated partner for the rest of the game.

A Fun Spades Endgame

This example is based off a play that one of my opponents made at a recent match. Suppose that your team is winning 499-341. You are one point away from winning, but also one bag away from going back 100 points.

The bids are:

Your partner: Nil
Opponent to your left: 5
You: ??
Opponent to your right: ??

Regardless of what cards you have, you should bid ... 9! You're almost certain to be set, of course, but with a successful nil your team will net 10 points for the hand and win without the risk of getting any bags. If you have a competent partner, she would only nil in this situation if it was pretty safe, given that she's first to act and that your team is well ahead. You can now focus on covering the nil without having to worry about how many tricks you take.

Ranked Preferences in Spades

(Those of you who don't know much about the spades card game won't get much out of this post, though a brief recap of the rules is here.)

In spades, you have to choose between two opposing goals--bagging or setting--and often have to switch strategies in the middle of the hand.

Your strategy can change dramatically if one team is close to the winning score, if one team has a high number of bags, or if a player has gone nill. For this example, assume that none of these factors is in play and that your team has bid 7 and your opponents have bid 3.

Your best outcome is taking 11 tricks, which makes your bid and sets your opponents, while taking the minimum amount of extra bags. Twelve or 13 tricks (nearly impossible in real life) are next best, as they also set your opponents but give you a few extra bags.

Next best is 7 tricks. You make your bid while taking no bags. Then you'd prefer 8, 9, or 10 tricks, which give you a few bags but don't set your opponents.

If you get fewer than 7 tricks, you don't make your bid. In this unfortunate scenario, you want to take as few tricks as possible, to maximize your opponents' bags. Zero is the best and 6 is the worst.

In sum, here are the number of tricks you could take, in order of your preference:

11, 12, 13, 7, 8, 9, 10, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

What makes the game fun is that when you aim for 7 (the fourth best option), you risk ending up with 6 (the worst option). When you aim for 11 (the best), you risk ending up with 10 (the seventh best).

Of course, you must also play in sync with your partner, who may be trying to bag while you're trying to set (or vice versa). And you should be watching which cards have been played, which gives you information on which cards the other players are likely to be holding and thus your chances of reaching your goal. And you may need to take into consideration some of the other things that I've assumed away (if one team is close to the winning score, if one team has a lot of bags, etc.). It can get complicated.

Poker Tournaments: Playing to Win Vs. Playing to Cash

CC image from banspy on Flickr.

Say you're in a one-table poker tournament with nine players, where the top three players get paid  (with a payout structure something like this). There are four players remaining: one with a short stack, two with a ton of chips, and you, somewhere in the middle. Say you are dealt pocket aces (the best starting hand). Many players in this situation would fold to avoid the risk of busting out, because there's someone else so close to going broke and thus guaranteeing you some prize money.

For most poker players I know, cashing is the ultimate goal, leading to extreme risk aversion when they're on the bubble. But they would do better by being aggressive in such lopsided situations. In the long run, playing pocket aces has a high expected value. If you played this situation a thousand times, a few times you'll get unlucky and bust out, but you also finish in first a lot more than you otherwise would have.

Norman Chad, or the Art of Getting Other People to Write Your Column

CC image of Norman Chad at the 2006 World Series of Poker by flipchip / lasvegasvegas.com.

From a recent Norman Chad column:

Q. Is it okay if I sometimes skip over your column and read just the questions and answers? (Don Gallovic; Lakewood, Ohio)

A. Maybe I'll start a hidden $500 reader giveaway in the body of the column -- that will bring you back, won't it?

Norman Chad is a syndicated weekly sports columnist and ESPN poker analyst with an offbeat sense of humor. For years, at the end of his columns, he has had several questions from readers, along with his answers. He promises readers $1.25 if their questions make it into print. He often answers with a quip, but often the questions are so funny by themselves that he just responds with his signature line, "Pay the man, Shirley." Arguably, the questions are the best part of Chad's columns.

It's a clever way to get out of doing a little work and generating a lot of loyalty and goodwill from the readers whose questions are used. And, as with many media ventures, readers are so satisfied with the bragging rights that come from seeing their names in print that they will produce valuable content with little or no compensation.

On my reading list is a book called Wikinomics, which covers similar business models.