Poker players who score high for manipulation and deception are more likely to bluff big and get upset when they lose, a new study has shown.

Frank Underwood

New research from the University of Lancaster and the University of Helsinki has used online poker players to better understand Machiavellians.

Machiavellianism is the personality trait associated with politicians, like the fictional Frank Underwood, who use manipulation and a disregard for morals to control others.

In a sample of 490 online poker players the study found that while those who scored high for Machiavellianism bluffed just as frequently as everyone else, they tended to bet much bigger when they did bluff, which the report suggests shows their attempt to dominate others.

Participants who scored high for Machiavellianism also displayed more anger when they themselves were bluffed or the victims of being slow-played. Dr Jeff Yan commented that:

Bluffing is an act of deception, whereas getting slow-played is becoming the target of deception. Being the target of deception might trigger negative feelings of being exploited or manipulated, and these feelings seem to be more pronounced in individuals who have a disposition for amoral behaviour.

They also were found to get more upset in general at poker losses.

Strong desire for control

Politician, poker player and bluffer, Tony G

Players who scored high for the trait 'distrust of others' were shown to bluff bigger. Those with high 'desire for control' bluffed more often. Players who scored high for 'amorality' got the most upset when they were slowplayed.

Dr Yan suggested that not only does this give insight into this 'dark triad' personality trait, it could also have some interesting implications for poker itself:

Our results also have practical relevance for worldwide poker players. For example, encountering players who are overly emotional after being the target of a slowplay might indicate they are high Machiavellians and prone to bluffing big. Calling bets made by these players might be more profitable than calling bets made by less emotional people.

He has also indicated that future research could include measuring a Machiavellians reaction to being shown a bluff.

What do you think of this research? Let us know in the comments.

Barry Carter Barry Carter is the editor of PokerStrategy.com and the co-author of The Mental Game of Poker 1 & 2. Twitter

Google+

Share this with your friends