Continuing this series of articles on cognitive biases in poker, I’d like to start—as is my custom—by explaining why it’s important to understand cognitive biases. After the first few parts, I hope you’ve come to realize that:

• it’s impossible to turn off the inner monkey—the intuitive channel;
• in certain situations, we really, really need the monkey.

System 1—or the intuitive decision-making system—is something we really, really need, and it’s precisely what distinguishes a professional from an amateur.

Imagine a professional boxer in the ring who, when his opponent’s gloved fist is flying toward him at tremendous speed, starts thinking: “I’ll dodge to the right now, then to the left, then I’ll duck, then maybe a double jab…”—and so on. If he thinks about that, he’ll be knocked out immediately—any athlete who’s ever boxed will tell you that. During training, reflexes are developed so that during a fight, the boxer thinks only strategically and positionally. At the moment of a punch or an attack, as a rule, he isn’t thinking about where to dodge, where to tilt his head, at what angle, how low to crouch, or where to extend his elbow… All of this happens automatically. And that’s exactly what our “inner monkey” does. It works quickly, without thinking—exactly what’s needed during a fight.

That much is more or less clear, but the question arises: do we need System 1 in other areas unrelated to motor coordination? Maybe we should turn it off in all other cases? Well, no!

Take a look, for example, at a game between top-level chess players. What distinguishes a grandmaster from a master, a master from a club player, and a club player from a beginner? You probably know that in chess there’s a clock with a flag. If the flag falls, time is up—which means you’ve lost. A certain amount of time is allotted for each game. The entire game depends on the speed with which the player finds strong moves. Does that mean they think better (faster) than an ordinary person—someone who isn’t a chess player? No.

Strange as it may seem, for a grandmaster, a titled master, or any trained chess player, all these moves come almost automatically; only afterward, with the help of System 2—our rational mind—does the player reject some, accept others, and decide which move to make. But there are a huge number of different moves that can be made on the board. How do you choose the optimal one from this multitude? The fact is that a chess player begins by considering the most important moves, and that is precisely what saves them time. That’s what the monkey does. And this happens not only in chess. As you might have guessed, it happens in poker, too.

System 1 (the inner monkey) is capable of making the right decisions only when a person has a certain amount of experience. And the more experience a person has, the more the energy-intensive and time-consuming System 2 delegates tasks to System 1. So I’ll repeat what I’ve said in previous articles. If you think you’ll find a “magic pill” in this text that will suddenly let you beat a poker bot—or, for that matter, defeat anyone at the poker table—you’re mistaken. My main point is this: to win, you need to make fewer mistakes, and to make fewer mistakes, we’re studying the key cognitive biases that apply to poker. In fact, I’m slightly shortening your path toward reducing systematic thinking errors when playing poker.

Let’s get to the point. Earlier, we looked at just two—but quite important—cognitive biases applicable to poker:

1. Gambler’s Fallacy

When you think that past events somehow influence the probability of future events.

2. Confirmation Bias

When, instead of accepting evidence that contradicts our established views, we seek only confirmation of our views while ignoring contradictory evidence.

Let’s examine a few more systematic cognitive biases related to our topic. Before we begin exploring anything new, please note that you should also study these biases in other sources of information. I also want to emphasize that I’m only discussing the cognitive biases I’ve personally encountered and was able to identify while analyzing my own thinking at the poker table. Who knows—maybe this knowledge won’t apply to you. That’s exactly why I recommend reading other articles and publications on this topic.

3. Illusion of Control

Do you tend to believe in superstitions? You probably knock on wood to ward off bad luck or keep good fortune from leaving. And if you spill salt, it’s said to lead to a quarrel. To counteract this, you toss a pinch over your left shoulder.

When it comes to poker, this cognitive bias occurs when you think you can influence a random event through your actions and rituals, even though the outcome is actually completely random.

Rituals can be absolutely any action you perform while playing poker that you believe will bring you luck—even if the failure rate is many times higher.

Some people tap the table a few times before making an important decision or switch the hand they use to bet. The most dangerous thing in this case is when your brain receives random positive reinforcement for your illusion of control.

Well, there’s really nothing more to say here: just next time, if you catch yourself performing some kind of ritual, you need to stop yourself from thinking that you can somehow influence the hand. Because that’s not the case.

4. Winner’s Curse / Survivorship Bias

Let’s take a closer look at this.

This cognitive bias is also known as “survivorship bias.” I’ll provide the most appropriate definition below.

Survivorship bias is a type of sampling bias that occurs when a person makes a decision based solely on examples of “survivors” (those who succeeded) but fails to consider statistics on “casualties” (those who did not achieve the same result), because data on the latter is scarce or nonexistent. People are subject to this cognitive bias in various situations: when making decisions in everyday life, in financial planning, in scientific research, in business, and, of course, in poker.

This cognitive bias was first identified during World War II by mathematician Abraham Wald. The U.S. Army was losing a huge number of aircraft. To improve the survivability of combat aircraft, the command tasked Wald with strengthening the aircraft’s structure while adhering to weight requirements. In other words, it was not possible to fully reinforce the aircraft’s armor.

Military engineers examined the damage to aircraft that had returned from the battlefield and assumed that the most heavily damaged parts needed to be reinforced. However, Abraham Wald pointed out that if an aircraft was able to return to base, then the hits to those parts were not critical. It was more important to focus on the damage that prevented aircraft from returning. In other words, armor should be added to the areas where the “surviving” aircraft had no holes. This helped reduce American aviation losses and save the lives of many pilots.

Now, let’s move on to poker. In poker, this bias manifests very often—even among regs. The standard way to combat this bias is to analyze your decisions after receiving this information and “slap yourself on the wrist” the next time you try to give in to your inner monkey. After such practice, the monkey will give you more accurate cues.

Only successful hands are remembered

Let me give an example from my own playing career. Once, at a tournament, I was playing absolutely recklessly. My VPIP was around 80, and I was playing very aggressively. I frequently went all-in on bluffs; a couple of times, that bet was called, and by some miracle, I made it to the final table and won the tournament. And what was the result? System 1 “remembered” this tactic as a winning one; many tournaments later, in my mind, it was still considered a winning strategy. It was probably after the tenth tournament—when I was eliminated almost immediately—that I realized this style of play wasn’t winning at all, and my victory had been a fluke.

A player remembers that single instance of success but completely ignores the dozens of times he did the same thing and lost all his chips. Only the “surviving” successful episode remains in his memory.

Imitating Someone Else’s Playing Style

Probably every reasonably good poker player works on correcting their mistakes, which includes watching stronger players and analyzing their style. In doing so, they might notice that a poker champion with junk cards in hand makes a super-aggressive bet and takes down a huge pot. System 1 also “bookmarks” this for itself, without even paying attention to the fact that 100 other hands played in this style would have been losing hands.

I’ll also include taking the advice of “seasoned” players at face value under this subpoint. Every strong player has their own well-honed System 1. It’s capable of producing the right moves in a short period of time. This is achieved through extensive experience and many hours at the table. But few professionals even realize that they have an “inner monkey” capable of providing them with the right decisions. And these players may believe that some particular style or ritual is what made them champions. And if they share their insights with beginners, it can backfire. After all, we now know that the whole secret lies not in rituals or specific tactics, but in the well-trained System 1 of experienced players.

Now you know two more systematic errors. I strongly recommend looking into them in other sources; you can ask ChatGPT or Claude for a few more examples. Once you have this important information, all that’s left is to observe yourself and your thought processes at the poker table (and, by the way, in everyday life as well). And you’ll soon spot these two new systemic errors during one of your hands. Forewarned is forearmed.