Three famous poker tricks, and how they can help us “read” our potential employees
If you have ever played poker with any likeness of professionalism, you have probably heard of Mike Caro, the legendary “Mad Genius of Poker”.
Caro is a professional poker player, casino consultant, and highly influential poker theorist. Although making a dent in the industry on all fronts, it was his work in poker theory during the 1980s that became his claim to fame—particularly, his development of a famous list of poker “tells”.
Caro’s list of tells are almost biblical to many poker professionals. To provide a simple definition: a “tell” is any mannerism or behavior that helps you determine what cards your opponent is hiding from you. That is, they help you read your opponent and then make better decisions.
Using Caro’s famous tells to read your job applicants
Many hiring managers would say that interviews are like a game of poker. Although these tells were designed to read people at the poker table, it also turns out that you can use them while interviewing potential employees. Here are three tells to give you a competitive edge in the interview:
1) Read them when they aren’t acting.
By “acting”, I mean playing a role to convince an audience of something. In a poker match, there are times when your opponent is “acting” and other times when they are not.
Caro says, “Most players only bother to ‘act’ when the rewards are immediate,” in other words, when a player is engaged in a high intensity hand, and trying to win it. During this time, they are likely to “act”, and try and convince their opponents to make losing decisions—for example, pretending to be confident when they are bluffing.
Therefore, Caro suggests that observing your opponent when they are not playing big hands will give you a glimpse into their true character.
In the interview:
Try to go off topic and disconnect your applicant from trying to win the “hand”. You can ask them anything—for example, what they think of that new hit television show. Remember, when you talk about the job, you give them a challenge to win your favor, and this encourages showmanship.
By creating a natural environment however, disconnected from the pressure of “winning the hand”, you can gain insights on what your applicant is like in their natural state. After observing an applicant’s natural state, when you turn on the pressure with tough questions, you will be able to spot deviations from this natural state. Therefore, you will be able to “tell” when they are acting.
2) Misinterpreting nervousness
Often, poker players think that when their opponents are nervous, it’s a sign of weakness. Countless casual poker players hold this as conventional wisdom; after all, nervousness displays fear, and weakness is something to be afraid of. As a result, when a nervous player bets many will immediately think they are bluffing. However, Mike Caro thinks differently. In fact, he states that: “many millions of dollars are lost every year by calling players who suddenly begin to tremble.”
When a player hits a big hand, they are presented with a large opportunity—this makes many players nervous. How are they to optimize their cards? As we all know, it’s nerve-racking to come out fighting! This is why we should never mistake nervousness for weakness.
In the interview:
Never think your applicant is weak because they are nervous—they could very well be holding a royal flush. Many applicants feel the pressure of “messing-up” their interview. A candidate can be perfect for the job, but simply be afraid that you the employer will not be able to tell.
Granted, nervousness in interviews can disqualify applicants from certain jobs, seeing as there are positions that require poised social performance in high-pressure scenarios, like many business development roles. However, for most roles, this is completely irrelevant.
3) Double-checking the cards
There are many reasons a player might look back at their cards and double-check them. For one, they might have simply forgotten their cards. For Caro however, this action is very revealing when it’s tied to a certain chain of events.
Here is the scenario: a player bets into the pot, and then you call his or her bet, or, respond with a raise. This call/raise then prompts your opponent to look back at their cards and double-check them.
For Caro, this indicates a high probability that your opponent is either weak or bluffing. If they had a strong hand, they would not need to study their cards! They just made a bet, and now are being challenged—why would they re-check their cards? They are either trying to appear strong by pretending to “study”, or are trying to make a really tough decision with a moderate to weak hand.
In the interview:
This tell only works in an interview when your applicant has their resume or some other sort of document in front of them.
Here is the scenario: your applicant bets into the pot—that is, they present a specific strength or skill. You respond by accepting this bet, and ask them to elaborate, or verbally demonstrate the capacity they have just presented. This then prompts your applicant to study the document in front of them.
Now, if you asked a very specific detail that is difficult for your applicant to remember, then this re-checking should be overlooked. However, if you request general information, there is little reason for them to re-check and study their documents.
According to Caro’s tells, this action usually indicates weakness, and a resultant attempt to appear strong. Unless the applicant is having a clear memory-jog, or is displaying a nervous tick, there is no reason for them to re-study their documents. Remember, they have just bet. They have just presented something to you, and you are simply engaging them on this topic in a very general way. Odds are that if this disorients your applicant, and sends them back to their books, they are likely trying to buy time and appear strong—while they think up a game plan in response to you “calling their bluff”.
[contentblock id=18]
