Watching a Ryan DePaulo video and he said, "Yeah, I called because I am racist. He was Asian, didn't think he had anything."

I recently was at a tournament and texted my brother how to handle a "Russian spewtard." He knew exactly what I meant and gave me good tips. In fairness, I actually needed tips on the old clueless lady who calls down with top pair, not fearing over pairs.

Just curious, is this type of profiling standard at a poker table?

Obviously, after playing with someone for an hour these types of profiles go out the window.

And, is this type of profiling racist, or just standard poker?

We have 15 seconds to size someone up before the first hand we play.

Just consult the big book of times it's ok to be racist that you guys insist on work-shopping for us. Page 2397 I think, just after at historical recreations and just before with this one black guy who's totally cool with it.

It's less racist than it is a highly ineffective heuristic.

Age-ism is pretty reliable though.

This is super racist but I feel black people tend to bluff a lot in poker compared to white people. I feel I’ve seen more big bluffs ran by black men in comparison to white men.

Obv this really depends on the person though. I feel you can normally generalize someone based on how they dress and act. Not 100% but generally can start a nice baseline expectation. I feel men that wear blingy jewelry / have loads of money for a buy in level also will be more likely to bluff. Certain Asian people play wreckless and gamble it up.


Honestly I feel age is best way to seperate people though. I feel generally older people tend to be nitty and tight while younger people tend to be more lag/tag. It’s also pretty evident when this doesn’t hold up but a 3 or 4 bet from an over 50 tends to be the goods.

Old Italian and Greek men, are stickier and, not sure they bluff more, but over value hands.

Again, am I racist, or correct in assesment?

and JKpoker, I don't disagree with your assesment.

I have 15 seconds to put someone in a category.

I profile with race.

And, is it wrong? Do Asians, African Americans, crazy old Greek men, tight old ladies, Russians and Finnish internet pro's play different?

And should we combat them differently based on that information alone?

Guess we can include people who wear maga hates as well. I fold more to this person, as I think they are stirring the pot looking for calls.

It is not racist to make a probability assessment based on known statistics about a race as long as:


1. An important decision depends on that probability assessment.


2. You don't have time to investigate an individual more thoroughly.


3. If the attribue you are given a higher than normal probability to is a negative one, you, when there is more time to reflect, think about the fact that the negative quality is almost certainly caused by unfair treatment in the past.


Otherwise it is.

David Skylansky, feel free to ignore the question.

First hand at a table. Your opponent is polarized, are you more or less likely to call an Asian, Russian, African American, or old lady.

And, are you taking their race into question when pondering the call, absent all other tells?

This is absurd.

If you are an inexperienced poker player, and you rely on race to make an assessment, you are a racist, or at least prejudiced. I do not know what conclusion you could draw based on race that would make sense. If you are inexperienced, you should not focus on the persons race, that's for certain.

If you are an experienced poker player, you've developed enough knowledge to know play styles vary across demographics and race does not indicate anything.

Jeff Boski, on one of his latest blogs starts betting multiples of 4's against Asians.

Instead of 40, he bets 44, or instead of 80, he bets 88.

Something about Asians with the fear of the number. Is Jeff Boski, well respected blogger racist? Or is there something to it?

I mean, Jeff Boski is total donk.

The way he posts his blog!

I continued the story with my garbage hand, and it didn't work, they snapped me with bottom pair, and I lost.

I mean, really, , Boski, wait for a good hand, and check your garbage!

But, he is making these bets based on race.

Boski a racist? Clearly not.

A big donk? Most likely.

It's a poorly thought out attempt at GTO, and an attempt at exploitative play. The stereotype that Asians are superstitious can be correct, which is what he is betting on. However, the likelihood of that being correct over a large enough sample size, or population size will show that he is a betting on a racist stereotype, thinking it's true, and he will lose. The fact he thinks it's true, makes his decision process racist.

So, you admit Asians can be superstitious! Point proven.

Not racist to play a stereotype that may be correct!

May be GTO negative.

and some of you spend your time engaging with me?

I posted the thread, but Asians and Russians open more.

They are more aggressive post flop.

Should be trapped more, called with less and big bomb bluffs on the river more.

And you know, Asian on Asian hands where everyone dumps are often amazing to see. Racist?

According to some the other guy blacks bluffed most. You’re saying Asian’s and Russians bluff the most?

Let’s stop being so PC - the Nepalese are clearly the biggest bluffers. Has something to do with evolving in the high altitudes of the Himalayan mountains. Apaches who evolved in the open plains, by comparison can’t help but excrete a single tear down their left cheek when being dishonest which data has proven is associated with a .25% reduction in bluff frequency. Especially on the river because rivers evoke a sense of oneness with the their anscetral deities which make it difficult for them to tell a lie reducing their bluff frequency by a further .125%. It’s been empirically proven. You disagree with science?

It seems to me that this topic could be improved dramatically just by being a little more precise in your use of language, instead of just using "racist" and "racism" so vaguely.

Let's say that all of the scenarios you've posted about are examples of over-generalization or stereotyping. That is, they all involve somewhat dubious inferences about people in group X having Y characteristics.

But racism is not a synonym for over-generalization, nor even for stereotyping, and not all forms of over-generalization are equally pernicious. The potential problem with trying to make this sort of heuristic use of over-generalization in poker stand-in for "racism" on the whole is that you're going to trivialize racism, probably without really getting anywhere useful.

I think this becomes clearer if you realize that what you're probably asking is not "is this racist?" so much as "is this wrong?"

In the context of a poker game "racial profiling" might be strategically dubious but probably usually harmless. And that matters as far as evaluations of racism and prejudice go. Concern about racism is concern about causing harm to people, not just an abstract concern about the use of logical fallacies. In comparison, when the NYPD employs racial profiling in traffic stops that is far more harmful, precisely because it is far more prejudicial in its consequences. You might even call both examples racist, but you shouldn't be confused that one is a lot more problematic than the other.

At the same time, a poker player who over-relies on stereotyping while playing poker may be apt to over-rely on stereotypes in other parts of his life as well. And that player should probably reflect on that a little. If your profile of African-American poker players has roots in racist stereotypes about black people and those racist stereotypes influence your thinking in contexts outside of poker, then that may contribute in its own small way to larger social problems with racism. That's worth thinking about and is probably more important than whether or not someone is giving up EV.

If you ignore race, age and sex at the poker table , you're losing money.

But if you aren't starting to refine your read almost immediately as information presents itself you are probably losing money also.

This example seems kind of analogous to jury selection. It is one of those open secrets that both prosecutors and defense attorneys lean heavily into racial stereotyping when choosing juries, and this generally is a very effective tactic. And it seems as a society we are ok with this form of "racism" for whatever reason.

It’s a biproduct of a jury selection process that was developed for completely different reasons.

It’s also not a good proxy for differences in play style since no one would find it contentious that people’s interpretation of a case (or loyalties) is influenced by group affiliation.

If anyone is interested in betting on this make a specific prediction of how big you think the difference is in aggression frequency (or vpip etc) by nationality and we can test it.

40 and 80 are multiples of 4.

preflop shove: asian prob has 22
river 3xpot shove: russian prob has busted backdoor runner runner gutshots

Profiling isn't necessarily racist, as it doesn't necessarily rest on the assumption that one race (or group if we use it more broadly) is superior. Nor does it have to be prejudiced, as it it doesn't have to have an affective component. Neither does it have to be based on stereotypes, as generalizing doesn't necessarily mean over-generalizing.

The dangers of profiling comes in six steps. If we go chronologically these are:
1) If racism, prejudice or stereotypes are inherent in the questions you ask, you will get skewed data.
2) If any of the three is present in the collection of data, you might look in the wrong places.
3) If any of the three is present in the analysis of data, your conclusions might be biased.
4) If any of the three is present in application of analysis, the usage might be biased.
5) If any of the three is present when assessing if the profiling worked, you might remain unaware of any of the previous errors.
6) Even if you did everything right, it might not be the best use of limited time and resources.

The crux is that profiling is very, very difficult to do properly, it is very difficult to tell if it worked and if you do use it wrongly it will not only mask errors, it might very well perpetuate them. And even in the cases where everything is done right, you could often have spent your time and resources better.

I do find it bizarre there is apparently an "Asian" stereotype.

Having started playing live poker in the live Los Angeles poker scene; you learn that Koreans, Chinese, and Vietnamese (There are more, but this is the big 3) all have their own stereotypes. And the whole concept of an "Asian" group is kind of bizarre.

And this doesn't even include Persians, Israelis and Armenians; which are technically Asian but aren't really included as part of the "Asian" demographic.