7 Common Planning Poker Mistakes Teams Make (And How to Fix Them in 2025)

Meta Description: Discover the 7 most common planning poker mistakes that sabotage estimation accuracy. Learn proven fixes and best practices to improve your agile story points estimation in 2025.

---

Planning poker has become the gold standard for agile estimation, helping teams worldwide estimate story points more accurately and collaboratively. Yet despite its widespread adoption, many teams unknowingly sabotage their estimation sessions with critical mistakes that lead to missed deadlines, overcommitted sprints, and frustrated team members.

If your team struggles with estimation accuracy—with the industry average hovering below 50% for sprint planning accuracy—you're not alone. The good news? Most planning poker mistakes are fixable once you recognize them.

In this comprehensive guide, we'll walk through the seven most common planning poker mistakes teams make in 2025, why they're problematic, and most importantly, how to fix them with actionable best practices.

Mistake #1: Anchoring Bias (Revealing Estimates Too Early)

Why It's a Problem

Anchoring bias is one of the most insidious cognitive biases affecting estimation accuracy. It occurs when the first estimate revealed influences all subsequent estimates, even subconsciously. When a senior developer says "this looks like a 3 to me" before others have formed their opinions, the entire team's judgment becomes anchored to that number.

Even if you're using planning poker cards, anchoring can creep in through:

• Sequential estimates: Each story becomes anchored to the previous story's estimate
• Casual remarks: Comments like "this should be quick" or "seems straightforward" before estimation
• Dominant voices: Senior team members sharing thoughts before the reveal
• Previous sprint data: Over-relying on similar stories from past sprints

Research shows that anchoring bias can skew estimates by 20-40%, making it one of the biggest threats to estimation accuracy.

Real-World Example

A development team is estimating a new authentication feature. Before the Planning Poker round begins, the tech lead casually mentions, "We built something similar last sprint in about 3 points." During the reveal, six out of seven team members show "3," even though the junior developer had initially considered "8" due to unfamiliar security requirements she'd need to research.

The result? A 3-point estimate for what turned out to be an 8-point story, leading to a blown sprint commitment and frustrated stakeholders.

How to Fix It

1. Enforce Simultaneous Reveals

The core principle of planning poker is simultaneous card reveals. Make this non-negotiable:

• Everyone selects their card privately
• All cards flip at exactly the same time
• No hints, facial expressions, or comments beforehand
• Use digital planning poker tools to enforce simultaneous reveals automatically

2. Maintain Pre-Estimation Silence

Before voting begins:

• No one shares their "gut feeling" on complexity
• Product owners describe requirements neutrally without suggesting effort
• Previous estimates aren't mentioned until after the first round
• Team leads explicitly avoid setting the tone

3. Estimate Larger Stories First

When possible, estimate your most complex stories first. This prevents small stories from anchoring larger ones downward. If you start with a genuinely large 8-point story, subsequent 3-point stories will be properly contextualized.

4. Use Relative Sizing Language

During discussion rounds, use relative comparisons instead of numbers:

• "This feels bigger than the login feature we did"
• "Smaller complexity than the API integration"
• "Similar to the dashboard work"

This keeps the focus on relationships rather than absolute values that can create anchors.

5. Acknowledge the Bias Openly

Make your team aware of anchoring bias. Before sessions, remind everyone:

• "Previous estimates will influence us—be conscious of this"
• "Form your own opinion before hearing others"
• "If you're second-guessing yourself because of someone else's number, speak up"

Best Practices

• Rotate facilitators: Different facilitators prevent one person from consistently anchoring discussions
• Break between stories: Take 30-second breaks between estimates to "reset" mental anchors
• Track accuracy: Review how often anchoring affected your estimates in retrospectives

---

Mistake #2: Estimating in Hours Instead of Story Points

Why It's a Problem

One of the most fundamental planning poker mistakes is estimating in actual time (hours or days) rather than relative story points. This defeats the entire purpose of planning poker and introduces several critical issues:

• False precision: Hours suggest an accuracy that's impossible to achieve
• Individual variation: A 4-hour task for a senior developer might take 12 hours for a junior
• Planning fallacy: People consistently underestimate how long tasks take
• Missing complexity factors: Time estimates ignore technical debt, dependencies, and unknowns
• Pressure and accountability: Hour-based estimates feel like commitments rather than estimates

Story points estimation works because it focuses on relative complexity, effort, and uncertainty—not calendar time. A 5-point story is roughly five times more complex than a 1-point story, regardless of who works on it or when.

Real-World Example

A team new to agile starts planning poker but estimates everything in hours. They estimate a "simple" UI component at 4 hours. However, they fail to account for:

• Code review and revision cycles (2 hours)
• Unexpected browser compatibility issues (3 hours)
• Integration with existing styles (2 hours)
• Unit test writing (2 hours)
• Meeting interruptions (1 hour)

What was estimated at 4 hours actually took 14 hours. With story points, the team would have compared it to a baseline story and recognized it as a 3-pointer based on similar complexity, giving them more realistic expectations.

How to Fix It

1. Establish a Baseline Story

Pick a genuinely simple, well-understood story from your backlog and designate it as your "1-point reference story." This becomes your baseline for all future estimates:

Example baseline: "As a user, I want to update my email address so I can receive notifications at my current email."

This baseline should be:

• Completed by your team (so you know the actual complexity)
• Small enough to build in half a day
• Representative of typical work
• Something everyone remembers and understands

2. Use Reference Stories for Each Point Value

Build a reference catalog:

• 1 point: Email address update (simple CRUD)
• 2 points: Add password reset flow (moderate complexity)
• 3 points: Implement basic search functionality (good complexity)
• 5 points: OAuth integration with third-party service (high complexity)
• 8 points: Redesign entire navigation system (very high complexity)

Keep these examples visible during planning sessions.

3. Ask "Compared to What?"

When estimating, explicitly ask:

• "How does this compare to our baseline story?"
• "Is this twice as complex as the password reset flow?"
• "Does this feel similar to the OAuth work we did?"

This forces relative thinking instead of absolute time thinking.

4. Focus on the Three Dimensions

Evaluate stories based on:

• Complexity: How technically challenging is it?
• Effort: How much work is involved?
• Uncertainty: How many unknowns exist?

A story might be low complexity but high effort (repetitive data migration) or high complexity but low effort (tricky algorithm requiring research but little code).

5. Never Convert Story Points to Hours

Resist pressure from stakeholders to convert story points back to hours. Instead, educate them on:

• Your team's velocity (average story points completed per sprint)
• How velocity predicts future capacity
• Why story points account for factors that hour estimates miss

Best Practices

• Track your velocity: After 3-5 sprints, you'll have reliable velocity data showing your story point capacity
• Calibrate regularly: Every quarter, review your reference stories to ensure they still represent the right complexity levels
• Educate stakeholders: Help product owners and executives understand why story points are more reliable than hour estimates
• Use velocity for roadmapping: Show stakeholders how velocity + story points = predictable delivery timelines

---

Mistake #3: Skipping the Discussion Phase

Why It's a Problem

Many teams treat planning poker as a quick voting exercise: reveal cards, take the average, move on. When everyone shows similar numbers, they assume consensus and skip the discussion entirely. This is a critical mistake.

The discussion phase is where planning poker delivers its real value:

• Different perspectives surface important considerations
• Hidden complexity gets uncovered
• Assumptions are challenged and clarified
• Team members learn from each other
• Risks and dependencies are identified

When you skip discussion, you're just doing faster—not better—estimation. You miss the knowledge sharing and risk identification that make planning poker superior to other estimation techniques.

Studies show that teams who consistently skip discussions have 30-40% lower estimation accuracy compared to teams who discuss each story thoroughly.

Real-World Example

During a planning session, the team estimates a "Add export to PDF feature" story. Six developers show "3," one shows "8." The Scrum Master, pressed for time, says "Looks like mostly 3s, let's go with that" and moves to the next story.

The outlier had estimated 8 because she knew:

• The existing PDF library was outdated and incompatible with their current Node version
• They'd need to migrate to a new library first
• The new library had a steeper learning curve
• Previous PDF features had significant cross-browser issues

Because discussion was skipped, none of this surfaced. The story was estimated at 3 points but eventually took 13 points worth of work across two sprints, derailing both sprint goals.

How to Fix It

1. Make Discussion Mandatory for All Estimates

Adopt this rule: Always discuss, even when estimates align.

Even when everyone shows the same number, ask:

• "What made everyone choose 3?"
• "Are we all seeing the same complexity?"
• "Any hidden gotchas we should discuss?"

Often, teams converge on the same wrong answer because they're all missing the same information.

2. Focus on the Extremes

When estimates diverge, focus discussion on the highest and lowest estimates:

"Sarah, you showed 8 while most showed 3. What are you seeing that we might be missing?"

"John, you showed 1. Can you explain why you think this is simpler than others do?"

The extremes often reveal:

• Hidden complexity the high estimator sees
• Simpler approaches the low estimator knows about
• Different interpretations of requirements
• Varying assumptions about scope

3. Use the "Three-Question Framework"

For each story, ensure the discussion covers:

Question 1: "What's included?"

• Clarify exact scope
• Identify what's explicitly out of scope
• Confirm acceptance criteria

Question 2: "What are the risks?"

• Technical unknowns
• Dependencies on other work
• Potential blockers
• Areas requiring research

Question 3: "What's our approach?"

• High-level implementation strategy
• Alternative approaches considered
• Why this approach was chosen

This framework ensures comprehensive discussion without going too deep into implementation details.

4. Set Time Boxes for Discussion

While discussion is valuable, it can become unproductive. Use time boxes:

• Simple stories (1-2 points): 2-3 minutes of discussion
• Medium stories (3-5 points): 5-7 minutes of discussion
• Complex stories (8+ points): 10 minutes, then consider breaking down

If discussion exceeds the time box, the story likely needs more refinement before estimation.

5. Capture Key Discussion Points

Assign someone to document important points raised during discussion:

• Risks identified
• Assumptions made
• Approaches agreed upon
• Open questions needing follow-up

Add these notes to the user story. They're invaluable when developers start working on the story weeks later.

Best Practices

• Encourage junior voices: Explicitly invite less experienced team members to share their perspectives first, before senior members
• No "obvious" stories: Even stories that seem obvious deserve 60 seconds of discussion
• Red flag for groupthink: If 10 stories in a row have unanimous estimates with no discussion, you're likely experiencing groupthink
• Review discussion quality: In retrospectives, ask "Did our planning discussions help us this sprint?"

---

Mistake #4: Including Non-Team Members in Voting

Why It's a Problem

Planning poker is an estimation technique for the team who will do the work. Including people who won't be implementing the stories—like product owners, stakeholders, managers, or even developers from other teams—distorts the estimation process.

Problems caused by non-team voting:

• Skewed estimates: People not doing the work can't accurately judge complexity
• Political pressure: Stakeholders' votes may reflect desired timelines rather than actual complexity
• Loss of ownership: Team members feel less accountable for estimates they didn't fully control
• Anchoring from authority: Senior leaders' votes disproportionately influence the team
• Invalid velocity: Velocity becomes meaningless when estimates come from people not doing the work

Planning poker works because it leverages the collective wisdom of people who understand your codebase, technical debt, tooling, and team capabilities. Outsiders lack this context.

Real-World Example

A team includes their product owner and a VP of Engineering in planning poker voting. When estimating a "Redesign checkout flow" story:

• Three developers show "8" (they know the checkout code is tangled and poorly tested)
• Two developers show "5" (they're optimistic)
• Product owner shows "3" (based on how long competitors' checkouts look)
• VP shows "2" (wants to impress the CEO with fast delivery)

The team averages to "5" and commits to it. In reality, the story was a genuine 8 due to technical debt. The sprint fails, and developers feel they were set up to fail by estimates that didn't reflect reality.

How to Fix It

1. Define "The Team" Clearly

Before planning poker begins, establish who can vote:

Eligible voters (people who will do the work):

• Developers who will write code
• QA engineers who will test
• Designers who will create assets (if design work is included in estimates)
• DevOps engineers (if infrastructure work is part of stories)

Observers (cannot vote but can participate in discussion):

• Product owners (to clarify requirements)
• Scrum Masters (to facilitate, not estimate)
• Stakeholders (to answer questions)
• Managers (to learn, not influence)

2. Give Non-Team Members Clear Roles

Define how observers participate:

Product Owner Role:

• Presents the user story and acceptance criteria
• Answers clarifying questions about business requirements
• Listens to technical discussion
• Does not vote or suggest estimates

Stakeholder Role:

• Provides business context
• Clarifies priorities
• Answers domain-specific questions
• Does not participate in complexity discussion

Manager Role:

• Observes to understand team capacity
• Learns why certain stories are complex
• Supports team decisions
• Does not influence estimates

3. Handle Pressure Gracefully

When stakeholders push for lower estimates:

Stakeholder: "This really needs to be a 3 to hit our deadline."

Response: "We estimate based on technical complexity, not desired timelines. This is an 8 based on the code areas involved. Let's discuss how to reduce scope or adjust priorities to meet your deadline."

Stand firm. Estimates must reflect reality, not wishes.

4. Educate on the "Why"

Help non-team members understand why they can't vote:

"Planning poker works because people doing the work understand our codebase's complexity, our technical debt, our tooling, and our testing requirements. Outside perspectives, while valuable for requirements, don't have this context. If you vote, our estimates become less accurate, not more."

5. Create a "Questions Only" Phase

Before voting, allow a 5-minute "Questions Only" phase where:

• Product owners and stakeholders can ask questions
• Team members can clarify requirements
• No one discusses complexity or estimates yet

This gives non-team members a valuable role without influencing estimation.

Best Practices

• Use digital tools: Planning poker apps can restrict voting to specific team members automatically
• Separate refinement from estimation: Product owners can participate in story refinement; estimation happens separately with the team
• Build trust: Show stakeholders that accurate estimates (even if higher) lead to better sprint success rates
• Report on accuracy: Track and share estimation accuracy metrics to demonstrate the team's reliability

---

Mistake #5: Not Establishing a Baseline

Why It's a Problem

Without a shared frame of reference, "3 points" means something different to each team member. One developer's 3 might be another's 5. This inconsistency makes estimation unreliable and velocity meaningless.

A baseline—a reference story that everyone understands and agrees represents a specific point value—creates consistency. It's the measuring stick that keeps everyone calibrated to the same scale.

Problems without a baseline:

• Drift over time: What counted as a 3 last month might be a 5 now, making historical velocity useless
• New team members: Newcomers have no context for what estimates mean
• Estimate inflation/deflation: Teams gradually shift their scale without realizing it
• Velocity confusion: Leadership can't trust velocity when the scale keeps changing

The baseline is your estimation "north star"—the fixed reference point that keeps everyone aligned.

Real-World Example

A team has been using planning poker for six months without establishing baselines. In retrospectives, they notice their velocity has "increased" from 25 points per sprint to 40 points—but they're not actually delivering more features.

What happened? Estimation drift. Stories they would have called 3-pointers six months ago are now being estimated at 5. Their 5-pointers are now 8s. The scale shifted upward, making velocity meaningless for forecasting.

When they establish baselines and recalibrate, they realize they're still delivering roughly the same amount of work—the numbers just changed.

How to Fix It

1. Choose Baseline Stories for Each Point Value

Select 3-5 completed stories that represent different point values:

Example Baseline Set:

1 Point - "Update Privacy Policy Link"

• Change URL in footer
• Update one config file
• No testing required beyond verification
• Clear, simple, well-understood

2 Points - "Add 'Remember Me' Checkbox to Login"

• Simple UI component
• Modify authentication logic
• Update tests
• Straightforward with one dependency

3 Points - "Email Notification on Password Change"

• Integrate email service
• Add email template
• Trigger logic
• Testing across environments
• Moderate complexity, clear requirements

5 Points - "Two-Factor Authentication via SMS"

• Third-party SMS integration
• New database tables
• UI for setup and verification
• Security considerations
• Higher complexity, some unknowns

8 Points - "Real-Time Collaboration on Documents"

• WebSocket infrastructure
• Conflict resolution logic
• Multiple UI components
• Performance testing
• High complexity, significant unknowns

2. Document Why Each Story Has Its Point Value

For each baseline, document:

• What made it that complexity level
• What was included in the work
• What challenges came up
• How long it actually took

This helps team members understand the "shape" of each point value.

3. Reference Baselines During Every Session

Make baselines visible during planning:

• Display them on screen
• Verbally reference them: "Is this more like the privacy policy link (1) or the login checkbox (2)?"
• Compare new stories to baselines

4. Recalibrate Quarterly

Every 3 months, review your baselines:

• Do they still represent the right complexity levels?
• Has your codebase or tooling changed in ways that shift complexity?
• Do new team members understand these baselines?
• Should you update or replace any baselines?

5. Create an Estimation Guide

Document your baselines in a shared wiki or document:

# Our Planning Poker Estimation Guide

## What We Estimate
- Complexity (technical difficulty)
- Effort (amount of work)
- Uncertainty (unknowns and risks)

## Our Baselines

### 1 Point
**Reference Story:** Update Privacy Policy Link
**Description:** Simple, clear, low-risk changes that take less than half a day
**Examples:** Config changes, text updates, simple CSS tweaks

[... continue for each point value ...]

## When to Use Each Point Value
[Detailed guidance...]

## Tips for Accurate Estimation
[Team-specific best practices...]

Share this with new team members and reference it when estimates diverge.

Best Practices

• Real stories only: Use actual completed stories from your project as baselines, not hypothetical examples
• Team agreement: Get consensus that these baselines truly represent each point value
• Visible reminders: Post baselines in your planning space or digital tool
• Update for major changes: If you migrate to a new framework or significantly reduce technical debt, recalibrate baselines
• Use in onboarding: Make baseline review part of new developer onboarding

---

Mistake #6: Forgetting to Account for Dependencies

Why It's a Problem

A story might look simple in isolation but become complex when you consider its dependencies—other work that must be completed first, integrations with other systems, or coordination with other teams.

Dependencies are estimation killers because they introduce:

• Wait time: Work can't start until dependencies are resolved
• Coordination overhead: Time spent in meetings, clarifying interfaces, resolving conflicts
• Integration complexity: Making pieces work together is often harder than building them separately
• Risk multiplication: Each dependency is a potential blocker

When teams forget to account for dependencies during planning poker, they underestimate stories by 30-50% on average. A story that seems like a 3 becomes a 5 or 8 when dependencies are factored in.

Real-World Example

The team estimates "Add user profile photos" at 3 points:

• Upload UI component
• Store images in cloud storage
• Display photos throughout app

Seems straightforward. But during implementation, they discover:

• The upload component depends on a new authentication header (waiting on the security team)
• Cloud storage credentials require IT approval (2-week process)
• Displaying photos requires redesigning several legacy components that don't support images
• The mobile app team needs to implement parallel functionality (requires coordination meetings)

What was estimated at 3 points took 11 points worth of work, mostly due to dependency management and coordination that wasn't considered during estimation.

How to Fix It

1. Add "Dependencies Check" to Your Discussion Framework

Before estimating any story, explicitly ask:

Technical Dependencies:

• Does this require other code to be completed first?
• Are we waiting on library updates or package installations?
• Do we need infrastructure changes before this can work?

Team Dependencies:

• Do we need work from designers, QA, DevOps, or other teams?
• Are multiple teams modifying the same code areas?
• Do we need reviews or approvals from outside our team?

External Dependencies:

• Are we waiting on third-party API access?
• Do we need data from external systems?
• Are there legal, security, or compliance reviews required?

2. Increase Estimates for Dependencies

Use this rough formula:

• No dependencies: Estimate as normal
• 1-2 minor dependencies: Add 1-2 points
• 3+ dependencies or 1 major external dependency: Add 2-3 points or consider splitting the story
• Blocking dependencies: Don't estimate until dependencies are resolved

3. Make Dependencies Visible

During planning poker:

• Call out dependencies explicitly before voting
• Document dependencies in the user story
• Use labels or tags to mark stories with dependencies
• Create a dependency board to visualize cross-story and cross-team dependencies

4. Split Stories to Isolate Dependencies

If a story has complex dependencies, split it:

Original Story (8 points): "Add user profile photos"

Split into:

1. "Set up cloud storage integration" (5 points - dependency work)
2. "Add photo upload UI" (2 points - depends on #1)
3. "Display photos in user profiles" (2 points - depends on #1)

This makes dependencies explicit and allows you to schedule dependency work first.

5. Track Dependency Impact

In retrospectives, analyze stories that took longer than estimated:

• How many had unaccounted dependencies?
• What types of dependencies caused the biggest delays?
• How can we better identify these dependencies during planning?

Use this data to improve future dependency identification.

Best Practices

• Dependency mapping: For complex features, create a visual dependency map before estimation
• Pre-resolve blockers: Tackle major dependencies in earlier sprints before scheduling dependent work
• Buffer for coordination: Add explicit "coordination overhead" to estimates for multi-team work
• Escalate quickly: When dependencies block work, escalate immediately rather than letting stories drag on
• Definition of Ready: Include "dependencies identified and documented" in your Definition of Ready for stories

---

Mistake #7: Using Planning Poker for Everything (When It's Not Appropriate)

Why It's a Problem

Planning poker is a powerful estimation technique, but it's not appropriate for every situation. Using it indiscriminately wastes time and creates frustration.

Planning poker works best for:

• User stories with moderate uncertainty
• Work that can be completed within a sprint
• Stories that the team has some context for

Planning poker is not appropriate for:

• Tiny tasks: Stories that are obviously 1 point don't need discussion
• Huge epics: Stories too large to complete in a sprint should be broken down first, not estimated
• Spikes: Research tasks with completely unknown scope can't be meaningfully estimated
• Operational work: Recurring maintenance, bug fixes, and support work often benefit from different estimation approaches
• Well-understood patterns: The 47th time you're adding a CRUD form, you know it's a 2—you don't need discussion

Using planning poker for inappropriate stories leads to:

• Wasted meeting time: Spending 10 minutes discussing a 1-point task
• Estimation fatigue: Team members disengage when forced to estimate the un-estimable
• False confidence: Epics estimated at 13 points that actually take 50 points
• Frustration: Teams feel planning poker is inefficient when they're using it wrong

Real-World Example

A team uses planning poker for every single item in their backlog:

• 15 minutes discussing a "Fix typo in documentation" task (ultimately estimated at 1 point)
• 20 minutes trying to estimate "Migrate entire database to new infrastructure" epic (estimated at 13 points; actually takes 3 months)
• Another 10 minutes estimating "Research GraphQL viability" spike (how do you estimate research?)

By the end of the 3-hour planning session, the team is exhausted, and only half the backlog is estimated. Team members start dreading planning poker.

How to Fix It

1. Use the "Right Tool for the Job" Approach

Match your estimation technique to the work type:

Planning Poker (Use for):

• User stories: 2-8 points
• Work with moderate complexity and some uncertainty
• Stories requiring team discussion
• Features where different perspectives add value

Fast Estimation (Use for):

• Obvious 1-point tasks
• Well-understood patterns (the 10th time doing something similar)
• Bug fixes with clear scope
• Quick wins and housekeeping tasks

Break Down First (Use for):

• Epics larger than 13 points
• Stories that can't be completed in one sprint
• Work with too many unknowns

Spike First (Use for):

• Completely unknown technical territory
• Research-heavy work
• Proof-of-concept or feasibility studies
• Stories where you "don't know what you don't know"

2. Implement the "1-Point Fast Lane"

Create a fast lane for obvious 1-point stories:

During backlog refinement (before planning poker):

• Product owner identifies clearly simple stories
• Team quickly confirms: "Is this obviously a 1-pointer?"
• If unanimous agreement, mark as 1 point and skip planning poker discussion
• If anyone disagrees, put it in the planning poker queue

This can save 30-40% of planning poker time.

3. Use T-Shirt Sizing for Epics

For large epics that need rough sizing before breaking down:

• XS: Less than 5 points
• S: 5-13 points (might fit in one sprint)
• M: 13-20 points (needs to be split)
• L: 20-40 points (needs significant breakdown)
• XL: 40+ points (needs epic-level planning)

This gives rough sizing without the false precision of pointing epics.

4. Create Estimation Guidelines

Document when to use planning poker:

# When to Use Planning Poker

## ✅ USE Planning Poker for:
- User stories between 2-8 points
- Work with uncertainty or complexity
- New feature types we haven't built before
- Stories where team discussion will surface risks

## ⚡ FAST LANE (Skip Planning Poker):
- Obvious 1-point tasks
- Typo fixes, text updates
- Completed similar work 5+ times
- Clear, simple, well-understood patterns

## 🚫 DON'T Use Planning Poker for:
- Epics over 13 points (break down first)
- Research spikes (time-box instead)
- "We have no idea" stories (spike first, then estimate)
- Recurring operational work (track actual time instead)

## 📋 Break Down First:
If you're about to point something at 13+, stop and break it down into smaller stories first.

5. Time-Box Spikes Instead of Estimating

For research or exploratory work:

Instead of: "Estimate how many points to research GraphQL"

Do this: "Time-box a 2-day spike to research GraphQL, then we'll plan the actual implementation with better information"

Spikes should have:

• Clear research questions to answer
• Fixed time box (usually 1-3 days)
• Deliverable (findings document, proof of concept, recommendation)
• Follow-up: Based on spike results, estimate actual implementation work

Best Practices

• Pre-sort backlog: During refinement, categorize stories by estimation approach before planning poker
• Respect team time: If planning poker sessions regularly run long, you're likely estimating inappropriate items
• Review effectiveness: Ask in retrospectives: "Did we spend time estimating things that didn't benefit from discussion?"
• Batch similar work: If you're building 10 similar features, estimate the first two with planning poker, then use those as references for fast-laning the rest
• Definition of Ready: Include "story is appropriate size for estimation" in your Definition of Ready

---

Bonus Tips: Best Practices for Planning Poker Success in 2025

Now that you know the seven mistakes to avoid, here are additional best practices to maximize your planning poker effectiveness:

1. Schedule Planning Poker at the Right Time

• Mid-sprint planning: Estimate next sprint's stories mid-sprint when the team is in rhythm
• Avoid Monday mornings: Teams are often catching up from the weekend
• Avoid Friday afternoons: Energy and focus are typically lower
• Best time: Tuesday or Wednesday afternoons when energy is good and context is fresh

2. Keep Sessions Short and Focused

• Maximum 2 hours per session: Break longer sessions into multiple days
• Estimate 8-12 stories per hour: If you're slower, you may be over-discussing or estimating inappropriate items
• Take breaks: 5-minute break every 45 minutes prevents fatigue

3. Track and Improve Estimation Accuracy

Calculate your estimation accuracy:

Accuracy = (Estimated Points / Actual Points) × 100%

Track this per story and per sprint. In retrospectives:

• Analyze stories with > 50% variance
• Identify patterns in underestimation/overestimation
• Adjust your estimation approach based on data

Target: 70-85% accuracy is excellent; 50-70% is good; below 50% indicates systematic issues.

4. Use Digital Tools Effectively

Modern planning poker tools offer advantages:

• Simultaneous reveals: Automatically prevents anchoring
• Remote-friendly: Critical for distributed teams
• History tracking: See past estimates and actuals
• Integration: Connect with Jira, Linear, or other project management tools

Consider tools like Planning-Poker.app (free and feature-rich), Scrum Poker, or PlanITpoker.

5. Educate Stakeholders on Story Points

Help non-technical stakeholders understand:

• Story points ≠ hours: They represent relative complexity
• Velocity: How story points predict delivery timelines
• Why story points are reliable: They account for complexity, not just time

6. Review and Refine Your Process

Every quarter, dedicate a retrospective to estimation:

• What's working well with our planning poker process?
• Where are our estimates consistently off?
• Are we making any of the seven common mistakes?
• What can we improve about our estimation approach?

---

Conclusion: Mastering Planning Poker in 2025

Planning poker mistakes can significantly impact your team's estimation accuracy, sprint success rates, and stakeholder confidence. By avoiding these seven common mistakes—anchoring bias, time-based estimation, skipping discussion, including non-team voters, lacking baselines, ignoring dependencies, and misusing planning poker—you'll dramatically improve your agile estimation process.

Remember the key principles:

1. Protect against bias: Simultaneous reveals and conscious anchoring awareness
2. Think relatively: Story points over hours, always
3. Discussion is the value: The conversation matters more than the number
4. Estimate as a team: Only those doing the work should vote
5. Use baselines: Consistency requires reference points
6. Surface dependencies: They're complexity multipliers
7. Use the right tool: Planning poker isn't for everything

Start by addressing your team's biggest pain point—whether that's anchoring bias, estimation drift, or skipped discussions—and gradually incorporate the other fixes. Track your estimation accuracy over time and celebrate improvements.

Planning poker, when done correctly, is one of the most effective agile estimation techniques available. Master these practices, and you'll see improvements in estimation accuracy, sprint predictability, and team confidence.

Ready to improve your team's planning poker process? Start your next session by sharing this guide with your team and picking one mistake to focus on fixing. Measure your before-and-after estimation accuracy, and watch your agile planning transform.

---

What planning poker challenges is your team facing? Share your experiences or questions in the comments below, and let's help each other build better estimation practices for 2025 and beyond.