heaven forbid there be any differences based on those traits--different might be bad, and we can't have that.

Thanks for your 2 cents, Professor Hill (we surely got trouble with a capital T that rhymes with P and that stands for pool)

This is pretty far afield of my point. Whether or not you believe in your daily life that any differences between races or gender or ethnicity exist is irrelevant to me. I just don't believe it is wise to do the same thing automatically at the poker table. If it turns out that you're playing someone that fits their typical stereotype, fine...I just don't think you should make that decision PRIOR to sitting down at the table. Several threads on here seemed to be doing that.

If you've been at the table 15 minutes or so and you assume the 20-something kid that just check-raised you is doing it with the same range of hands that a 70-something woman would, then you are costing yourself money.

The thing is that a lot of people have been just as sure as you seem to be about differences among groups and have ended up looking stupid. Instead, our history has proven that many of the things that people once believed about minorities, women, etc., are false.

So that's why you need math. Math corrects your biases and the things that you think you know but really don't. Do some.

Actually, you could also be costing yourself money by assuming the opposite.

If you have little information, HUMILITY is +EV. But the kinds of people who use stereotypes prefer to think they know more than they do.

That's the best time to make that decision. Before you sit down, you have nothing else to go on. The stereotypes prove true because they are true. The politically correct among us are too afraid to point out the obvious: that those of particular ages, genders, ethnicities, and races have strengths and weaknesses more common to their classification than could otherwise be explained by chance. These strengths and weaknesses range beyond poker. Someone can be a bad driver ("I need to get over to the far left lane--good luck everybody!") and really talented in math. Or in a poker sense, someone can be too predictable (only reraise with AA) yet they don't go on tilt like so many other players who know how to vary their range properly. These tendencies run in packs that can be matched with the aforesaid classifications.

There are differences among people, but until we have a solid read on a person, these fallback stereotypes are valuable as being more helpful than unhelpful. What's more, the stereotypes usually end up being true in most ways for a particular member of a particular classification--both the good aspects and the bad aspects of the stereotype.

It is not sexist to acknowledge the common stereotypes of women poker players, as long as you recognize the good and the bad. Recognizing only the bad stereotypes of a group is usually done by members of the majority to members of the minority as a tool of oppression, and that is ignorant and harmful. Stereotypes are a tool that can be used for good or misused for harm.

So I will take that shortcut because it is +EV. Some people tend to just be bad at poker, and that streak runs disproportionately in their classification. But they could be great with finances, math, sports, you name it. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm a better person than they are; it means only that I am better--in general--than people of that classification at one particular activity, such as poker.

You mistake putting one's head in the sand in the holy name of Political Correctness (may Its majesty reign forever) for humility.

Like the Declaration of Independence says, we are all created equal, but that refers to our fundamental rights, not our talents and foibles.

...or, maybe we do. ...but until demonstrated otherwise, you evaluate the stereotype into your decisions.

It's simply a matter of putting the right weight to the stereotype. 1%? 5%? 10% of my decision?

Is he just Asian? Did the old guy show up at 5am and order breakfast? Does the young kid have his friends with him and are they players too? Is the drunk still drinking? Does sunglasses guy have a backpack prepared with all of his supplies for the day?

Much like every other thread where we deal with incomplete or possibly wrong information...

Sure, maybe your gathered information is wrong, but you have to put all of these little pieces together and make a decision, and it can't always just be call <9/46th pot on a flush draw. So you reevaluate as you go.

When given a problem to solve with incomplete information you must give value to a certain set of assumptions in order to make a decision. What exactly those assumptions are and how much value you should give them can be debatable depending on the circumstance.

So what is everyone arguing about again?

Ok, be honest here. If grandma limp-shoves UTG you truly believe she is ever turning up with anything besides AA? Ok ok I jest, she may be a wild one and be semi-bluffing with KK.

That depends, does this grandma understand the rules of pokah and have a sense of absolute hand strengths? Does she have a drinking problem? Can she name the city she is in or the current year? Is this game being played at a family gathering?

To take this point on regarding profiling is not based on science... Sorry, yes it is. The entire field of marketing is directly built around statistically profiling segments to determine ways to best sell to those segments because overall the segment will tend to exhibit similar characteristics. Companies pay big $ for data warehouses so they can dig in and profile how groups of customers tend to behave in certain ways. It's nice thinking we are all individual snowflakes but unfortunately often different groups do tend to behave in similar ways.

This illustrates dramatically the value of stereotypes. Most are not so clear cut, but that does not mean they entirely lack value.

Segmenting the market based purely on demographics is considered, by most of the research I've ever seen, to be incredible fraught with peril. In fact, the strongest type of marketing is behavior-based, where segments are grouped according to their actions and stretch across demographic and ethnic groupings. Grouping only based upon demographics would've earned me poor grades in school and a pink slip by my clients.

In the absence of behavioral data for the present cohort, we can extrapolate from behavioral data for the prior cohort of similar age, gender, ethnicity, race, education, etc. This applies at the poker table. So what you're saying is correct in that if I continued to sit at a poker table and think the little old lady is only going to limp-reraise with AA and yet she has limp-reraised every hand for the last 20 hands, and I don't adjust my read on her because I'm stuck in my age and gender default stereotypes, then yes, shame on me.

What we're simply pointing out is that these stereotypes are powerful, and the behavior of members of particular subsets conforms to the norms with far greater frequency than they don't. They provide a starting point from which we deviate based on additional data specific to that person's behavior that we observed.

So yes, when I sit down at a table of unknowns, I'm going to start with my assumptions that
--the woman is going to play loose passive
--the old man is going to play tight passive
--the Asian is going to bluff a lot
--the black is going to be a calling station or loose aggressive
--the young adult is going to play tight aggressive
--the married Latino man is never going to bluff

etc., etc. Shame on me if I don't let behavior I actually observe as time goes on change or inform those starting points.