# Would a poker player do better on a polygraph test than the average person

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-poker-player-do-better-on-a-polygraph-test-than-the-average-person/804859>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [December 19, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-poker-player-do-better-on-a-polygraph-test-than-the-average-person/804859 "2017-12-19T14:00:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\
**Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-poker-player-do-better-on-a-polygraph-test-than-the-average-person/804859/21 "2017-12-20T17:51:31Z")

</div>

> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> If this were true, then there would be no disparity in results between testing a person with no risk of penalty and testing a person with a risk of penalty for failing the test. I don’t recall the number for the former (60%?) but the latter was 98%, I believe.

I would sure like to see a cite or two that backs up this belief.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\
**Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-poker-player-do-better-on-a-polygraph-test-than-the-average-person/804859/22 "2017-12-21T00:50:52Z")

</div>

There’s no possible way to determine that number, the reliability of polygraphs as lie detectors in situations where there’s a penalty for failure. To do that would mean that you’d have to know, independently of the polygraph, what was true and what wasn’t, and if you already know that, then the results of the polygraph can’t be high-stakes.

And why is the human operator so essential, and how do you know how good an operator is? How do you train them? If you can train a human to interpret a polygraph, then you can train a machine to interpret it, too (or contrapositively, if you can’t train a machine to do it, then neither can you train a human to do it). Polygraph data is a heck of a lot simpler than CCTV data, and even CCTV data, we’ve successfully made machines that can interpret it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\
**Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-poker-player-do-better-on-a-polygraph-test-than-the-average-person/804859/23 "2017-12-21T01:23:40Z")

</div>

A successful polygraph operator needs to know how to do one thing to be successful: figure out what the people who hire her/him want to hear.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)\
**Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-poker-player-do-better-on-a-polygraph-test-than-the-average-person/804859/24 "2017-12-23T09:14:10Z")

</div>

> [@x-ray\_vision](#):
>
> Consciously control certain physical rhythms.? Why consciously if you believe your lie is true?
> 
> How does one go about implementing the strategy of getting yourself to believe your lie isn’t a lie?

The technique used by the one person I know who fooled more than one polygraph for employment purposes was 2 martinis about an hour before the test. I hold his CV as evidence of the unreliability of the test.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-poker-player-do-better-on-a-polygraph-test-than-the-average-person/804859.md?page=1)