One mistake that novice poker players often make is that they always bet when they have a good hand (or if they want to bluff) and only check when they have a weak hand. Although this may seem like a good strategy at first it exposes the player to a number of issues, one of which is that it makes their checking range very weak. A player’s “range” in poker refers to the set of hands they could possibly have given the actions they have taken. If a player only ever checks when they have a weak hand and their opponents pick up on this their opponents will be able to take advantage of them by betting into them aggressively after they check and it will be very difficult for them to respond since they never have a strong hand. A player can avoid this by deciding to check with a few of their strong hands. This is referred to as “protecting your checking range”.
The dynamic here is quite interesting, the player takes an option, checking with a strong hand, that seems strange and suboptimal when looked at in the context of a single hand but when we zoom out and look at the broader strategy we see that it was necessary and rational. This is not a dynamic which is unique to poker, it also pops up in real life. Let’s explore an example.
Sometimes, when you ask someone where they are going or what they are doing they will give a complete answer, something like “I’m going out to the store to buy eggs and milk”. However, other times they will act evasive and simply say something like “I’m going out”, and still other times they may even get openly hostile and say something like “mind your own business”.
There are many reasons why someone might desire secrecy as to their plans. These reasons run the gamut from the wholesome, perhaps they are buying a gift and wish for it to remain a surprise, to the dramatic, perhaps they will being hanging out with someone with whom they know you have a disagreement and they don’t want to bring it up, to the nefarious, perhaps they are planning on committing a crime or cheating on their romantic partner. What’s most interesting to me, however, are the cases when someone is secretive without any apparent reason. You might observe someone respond with a short “Don’t worry about it” when asked where they are going but then later you find out that they are simply going to get a haircut or something else equally boring. What’s up with that?
When I first encountered this sort of secrecy about utterly mundane plans I found it perplexing. I couldn’t understand what was driving these people’s incessant need for privacy in these situations. But then I figured it out. They’re protecting their range! If you only ever demand privacy when you actually do have something to hide then your demand itself now gives away information. Those around you may not know what you’re hiding but they know it’s something interesting and if they’re curious they might be motivated to try to find out. This is the exact opposite of what you want when you’re attempting to be surreptitious. The best way to avoid this is to mix up your range by acting private and closed off about even the most mundane things thereby lessening the incentive for those around you to subject you to any extra scrutiny.
This dynamic can also be exploited in reverse. Suppose you have a new friend or romantic partner with whom you want to build trust and credibly signal that you have nothing to hide. One way you can do this is by being habitually open about even the smallest of things. By doing this you are limiting your future ability to hide things and get away with it since if you suddenly stop being so open it will throw up red flags. Your willingness to limit your future self in this way then serves as a credible signal that you do not intend on hiding things from this person in the future and thus helps to build trust. This remains true even if all of the things you have had the opportunity to be open about have been relatively trivial.
Another interesting fact about these dynamics is that most people act as if they are true without ever consciously thinking about them. When someone asks you where you’re going and you say “None of your business” You are very unlikely to be thinking “I know I’m just going to the store but I need to act private so that in the future if I do have something to hide it won’t be obvious” Instead what’s going on in your head is that you feel a bit peeved at the question and respond instinctively. Similarly when someone is very open with you and you start to trust them more you’re not thinking “By being open now he’s destroying his future ability to sneakily hide things so this makes him more likely to have nothing to hide” Instead you just naturally start feeling more comfortable. Thus these dynamics serve as an example of how sociocultural evolution can converge to game theoretically sound reasoning and actions without anyone ever having to figure it out.
There's a meta game here. Intelligent people with malicious intent instinctively capitalize on these dynamics and use them to their advantage.
EG the man/woman who is bizarrely open and providing far too much unnecessary disclosure at the beginning of a relationship is *less* trustworthy than you imply.
S/he's rigging the system in their favor. A savvy Machiavellian will extract value in a myriad of ways by playing both sides of this dynamic—meaning there is no reliable poker tell in this behavior set. Relying on these heuristics only makes one conscious of the potential game, it doesn't make you better at playing it...and it could make you perform significantly worse if you don't think beyond the first few hands of texas hold em.
I have actually been thinking about a very similar range analogy. If you have a really strong range/the nuts, you very rarely want to slowplay (i.e. "protect" your check-back range) unless the SPR is really low (since you can reliably stack your opponent in fewer streets). I think this also applies to signaling games in real life. I notice a lot of people do the meta-contrarian thing and try to countersignal their success/status in social events. They are effectively trying to "trap" people into thinking they are less successful than they really are, to then potentially get a more satisfying form of clout later (like a grand reveal). But long-term this just makes you lose out on potential opportunities.