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.

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.

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. Email: areber@brooklyn.cuny.edu