MarcusBateman1

A recent study by the Guardian newspaper has revealed something that many football fans have long suspected, but has now been confirmed mathematically: Manchester United get more extra time when behind than they do when in front. In the 2006-7 season for example, United got an average of 194.53 seconds added when they went into extra time ahead, compared to over 217 seconds when drawing or behind. In the 2007-8 season this was even more pronounced, with the numbers standing at 178.29 and 254.5 respectively. The gap also grew again last season.

Although this has to be taken in the context of United's never say die attitude and unrelenting end game aggression, there is little doubt that such a statistic must be aiding United in their pursuit of the late game equalisers and winners. It is a complex question why they are getting these extra minutes, but one of the core reasons behind this difference in time scales is referee intimidation and aggression. Currently serving a five match ban for just that, Ferguson has a long and clear history of speaking his mind about referees to levels well above and beyond what is allowed by the rules, and this feature of his career has slowly given his team a decent edge at the end of games.

No one likes to feel stupid or embarrassed on global television, and the wrath of Ferguson will certainly be at the back of every referee's subconscious each decision they make, and this effect seems to quickly add up to those important extra minutes at the business end of games. This process is actually something which penetrates many sports and games, and it is exceptionally relevant in poker in two core areas, both ones that it is critical to keep focussed on at the tables.

The first example comes when dealing with players who are critical of all your plays, such as everyone's favourite poker brat Phil Hellmuth. Some people play poker just to bully people and get off on abuse, but most people who critique your play are trying to force you into your shell and make yourself predictable (Hellmuth nearly certainly falls into the latter category). The act of habitually shaming your plays is designed to try and make you want to never do the 'wrong' thing, which in turn makes your game predictable and easy to dissect - do not fall into this trap.

Secondly, if you are in a high pressure public situation, such a tournament where the hole-cards are on camera, make sure you don't get too hung up on not doing anything 'stupid'. Poker is a game where to win you regularly have to take chances and make plays that can look bad when you run into the top of your opponent's range of possible hands, and it is critical you keep your head on what the best play is in terms of winning the chips, not what looks most respectable on television.

Intimidation is a very powerful asset in all walks of life, but particularly in sports and games. Making sure you understand the effect it can have on your brain is crucial to success in most competitive fields, but especially at the poker tables, where so much is down to confidence and self belief. Just like a good referee, you simply have to make the best possible decision you have with the information available to you. Despite the fact that pretty much by definition you will always looks dumb at some points under such circumstances, having the strength to overcome critique, maintain self belief and not let outside factors get to you and effect your future decisions is critical to staying strong.