Application

Ok, what on earth does it have to do with poker? Here are some possible applications of transactional analysis to poker.

Existential Position and Poker

First of all, the player’s existential position is often a very good indicator of his style and what he tries to do.

Someone on a (+-) existential position has (possibly excessive) confidence in his abilities, and believes most of his opponents are poor players. He may splash around (I’m gonna walk on you, wimps!) or play very tight (now I’ll teach you some poker, loose goose). His beliefs may lead him to be particularly aggressive, which, depending on his real skills, can make him a dangerous foe - or a would-be bully.

The (-+) player is often fairly weak. He doesn’t believe in himself, but give credit to his opponents for being good players. Hence, he won’t make many moves, he won’t try to push people, he will essentially call and fold when put to the test - a quite good opponent.

The (- -) player doesn’t see himself as a good player, and doesn’t believe his opponents are, either. He may think that these games are not beatable and the only winner is the casino. He won’t put himself in position to win, since it would contradict his beliefs. He is probably going to play a tight/weak poker, so as to sort of “prove him right”.

The (++) player is both confident and respect his opponents’ game. He will often be in position to make the most accurate analyses at the table. Sometimes, he may also give too much credit to his opponents and fail to exploit their weaknesses to the maximum.

Player’s Ego State

A Poker player’s ego state, along with his existential position, can have a big influence on his game.

A Child is playing to have fun, he doesn’t want to get bored. You can expect him in many pots. As we’ve seen, crossed transactions are bound to create conflicts, so it’s often pointless to make Adult or Parent remarks to a Child (“You didn’t have the odds to draw”).

The Natural Child is liable to make both bold bluffs and big calls, since he will yield to his desire to play and his curiosity.

On the contrary, the Adapted Child is dominated by his fears and his desire not to disappoint: he is unlikely to make plays that would cause people to frown on him.

The Parent holds our “values”, regarding how we judge our opponents and our cards. At Holdem, some players consider KQ as a great hand, while other players see JJ as good as a deuces. Our values are a useful shortcut to analysis, preventing us from making judgement mistakes. On the other hand, they can also be our main weakness, since many situations are way too complex for a set of pre-defined rules.

Transactions and Poker

We distinguish two types of Transactions at poker: those occuring through the usual communication means (verbally, and with meta-language, like facial expressions), and those expressed by the betting.

The goal is naturally to lead your opponent where you want him to go: pay you when you are winning, fold to your bluffs, launch bluffs when you induce them, and so on.

This is closely related to manipulation. We saw that Covert Transactions are particularly useful in this regard.

Example:

• “Fold, I’ve better cards than you” (Do what I say, kiddo!)
• “I call” (I do what I want!)

The transaction seems to come from the Adult, but it actually comes from the Parent and is addressed to the Natural Child. This is a rather frequent angle, which can work wonder against the right player.

Even non-verbally, a re-raise can have a similar effect, especially all-in re-raises. They can be interpreted as an order to fold, essentially saying “you cannot call this”. But Children don’t want to be told what to do, so they often have a urge to call.

The Parent, on the contrary, has strong values and most probably play pretty tight. He sneers at other players’ inferior hands, and don’t mind making remarks about people’s way of playing, why they were foolish not to fold etc… A Parent doesn’t like when people transgress their rules and values!

Consequently, you can activate the Parent ego state of your opponent if it looks like it is a major trait of his. Depending on your overall image, well-timed small raises can convey the impression of a Child fooling around, calls can be construed as those of a stubborn Child, and big raises can appear as a tantrum.

In themselves, these actions do not necessarily say anything; the interpretation is highly subjective, and again depends on several factors like your perceived image and your opponent’s state of mind. Manipulation is more of an art than a science!

Games We Play

Several Games seem to be played on a regular basis in the poker world. Some of these behaviors have already been described in the literature, some you may have figured out by yourself.

Now I’ve Got You, You Son of a Bitch

This is the original title from Berne’s book, Game People Play. Remarkably, Poker is used as an illustration!

The idea of the Game is to get his opponent at his mercy and to derive great pleasure from the situation. In poker, that could be getting the nuts with almost no outdraw, and “play” with one’s victim. The player with the nuts may explose and re-raise right there, too happy to be at last in position to legitimately show strength or make a stand against a bully. In other circumstances, the player may slowplay so as to linger on this pleasing instant.

The characteristics of this Game are the accumulated frustration and the real goal being to vent this frustration in the way affording the most pleasure. Thus, winning the most money is not the primary goal.

This Game partially explain why so many players are so fond of slowplaying.

Why Does This Always Happen To Me?

The “hero” in this Game wants people to know that he is the most unlucky human being on the surface of the planet. This is a way to get Strokes (as defined above), and bad Strokes are better than none.

Consequently, he will go out of his way to prove his point. This means he will avoid getting in position to get lucky: that would ruin his Game. Don’t expect many bluffs from this player - he doesn’t want to give the impression that he gets good cards. However, you can bluff him out, since folding will prove that he was unlucky enough to get outdrawn again.

Mike Caro already described this profile in several articles; T.A. brought the more general version.

If It Weren’t For The Cards

In this Game, something is used as an excuse to avoid dealing with something feared. In the original Game, the husband was preventing his wife from having an active social life. It turns out that the woman did not want to have one, she was afraid of it, but the husband was the responsible, so that she didn’t have to deal with her fears.

At poker, the cards are the good excuse. You don’t get any, so you cannot play. That’s all well, because in fact, even if you would not admit it, you’d rather not play with that couple of loose-aggresive players who dominate the table. It is clear they cannot have that many good hands, but good hands or not the pressure is real.

Conclusion

If this is your first reading on Transactional Analysis, you may find it weird, or even rubbish. Yet, it used to be very popular among managers, and it is still widely taught to salesmen and in Business courses. It is just a convenient model, not the vivisection of our psyche. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the different perspective, and that you will find it useful.

(1) comments

Related Items:

• Cognitive Dissonance