If poker is a microcosm of life, it shouldn’t surprise us that women are frequently the most empathetic players at the table—often to the detriment of our results.

In the 1980s, psychologist M.H. Davis developed a multidimensional scale to measure empathy called the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), and found that women scored significantly higher than men on all four measured dimensions¹.

We feel more sympathy for the misfortune of others (Emotional Concern scale), we more often transpose into the feelings of fictitious characters (Fantasy scale), we can better put ourselves in other’s shoes (Perspective-Taking scale), and we feel more personal distress when we observe distress in others (Personal Distress scale). Since then, several empirical studies and meta-analyses have backed up this finding.

What’s wrong with being empathetic? Nothing at all, if you don’t let it affect the way you play. Chances are you do though; it’s extremely difficult not to let empathy lead us to be nicer and even soft-play others at the table.

Being too nice in poker is like befriending a lamb before you turn him into lamb kabobs, you just shouldn’t do it (trust me, RIP Lambie). Except not only will it ruin your dinner, the smart “lamb” will recognize your weakness and play better against you. My brother once said, after bluffing me out of a hand some time ago, “I use your love as fold-equity.” It worked, and I can’t blame him for doing it; because even worse than being nice, is expecting others to return the favour.

The concept of poker altruism that has developed among some women is ridiculous. I have seen it time and time again—women soft-playing their friends and expecting others to return the favour. “How could you call me with ATos, I would never do that to you!”—This kind of mindset has no place in poker. It’s one thing to let your emotions deter you from maximizing the value of your hands, but to ask someone to do the same is absurd.

That’s not to say you should be cruel - being overly emotional in any way is obviously bad for your game. Learn to leave your emotions off of the poker table altogether.

Can we really just turn off our emotions at the flick of a switch?—Unlikely. Deepak Chopra once said not to try to think positively, instead consider the reasons behind thinking negatively and aim to change them, and positive thinking will follow. I think this makes sense for empathy in poker. By reframing our concept of the game as just that, a game that is played to be won, and encouraging others to do the same, empathy becomes less salient.

Maybe we shouldn’t try to turn off our empathy, but dim it down a bit. If we could learn to control it, and act only on certain cognitive rather than emotional dimensions of empathy, it could actually be an edge. The ability to take on another’s perspective makes it easier for us to read other’s emotions, which would be advantageous in live play.

We owe it to ourselves to explore and act on the issue; women who play poker struggle daily for success and respect in this field, and the only way we are going to get it is if we just stop being so goddamn nice.

Mona Harb is a poker player and writer from Ottawa, Canada. She holds a degree in Journalism with a Concentration in Psychology from Carleton University. Former content editor for Academic Exchange Extra, a peer-reviewed e-journal for educators, Mona has also contributed to such publications as Canadian Geographic Magazine and the Ottawa Citizen. Among her poker accomplishments is making the final table of the miniFTOPS Main Event in 2011 under the user name 'KHALAS'. She also plays on PokerStars where she goes by 'sexyhands'. Follow her on twitter.

1. Davis, Mark H. “Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44.1 (1983) : 113-126.