I've been playing poker for a while now, but only recently, playing with a couple of my friends( all from different part of the world) I have had a different opinion of the game. I could tell who was a bluffer, who was a spender, who was conservative, and who was born to be poor, who would take bribes in exchange of favors, and who would colaborate with the leader on the table. I've started analyzing who made alliance with who, based on the countries they were from, and in most case, it all made sense. Although I was the second player with the most chips, I still lost by intimidation. The way the table was set (round , looking like the world), it seems like the leader owned the world (with his chips taking 3/8 of the whole table. I also have to say that the leader of the table come from a rich country and is used to money
2007-01-19
13:24:06
·
4 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Social Science
➔ Psychology