Superstition - has it been tested?

A bit of a light hearted question; I agree that superstition has no meaning and is pointless but some poker players are very superstitious about winning the first hand. Has there been any statistical studies done on the players who win the first pot and whether they go on to win or lose?!

Probably about as many studies as have been done on whether the first hand in big table baccarat is a Tie or not. People bet on Tie as part of a tradition supposedly steeped in some long forgotten superstition. Its all about as valid as bad luck befalls he who bets The Don't when a pregnant woman is shooting from the Pass Line. No one really bothers to study these things... but how much does it cost to knock on wood?

Table image has a lot to do with live hand poker. With that said, winning or losing one pot shouldn't change it much.

I've found that losing on the showdown before I've taken a decent pot can put me on a nasty tilt. That might well be part of it.

I've never heard this superstition about winning the first pot.

I know that in tournament situations some top players play very few hands -- while there are some who seem to be in every pot.

I just want to be in the pots I am going to win. And if I feel my cards are not going to win I get out of the pots as quickly as I can. I hate to be "pot committed." That's like being waist high in quicksand.

Just one thought about superstitions: some superstitions have some basis in fact. For example, breaking a mirror brings seven years bad luck. This comes from the old days when it could take seven years of savings for a working person to afford the price of a mirror. Hence the expression, breaking a mirror brings seven years of bad luck.

Maybe some "first pot winners" went on to win tourneys and that's how that one got started??