[eMbAh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is an excellent section on this topic, p. 168-175, "Multiple Levels of Thinking." Basically, it explains that you need to think one level ahead of your opponent. Which seems pretty obvious, but I hadn't thought of it until I read it. For example, what good does it do to act on what I think he thinks I have (2nd level), if he only plays his cards (0 level) and doesn't think about what I have (1st level). In that instance, thinking on the 1st level is optimal, and 2nd level thinking will give you problems. Against a 1st level thinker, you need to think on the 2nd level. And so on. It's a really interesting concept that seems well explained.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll say it until you're all dead, Sklansky knows nothing about levels. There are two: game on and game off*. Making the right moves at the right time is purely about multidimensional pattern modelling, not the pseudo-rigourous Sklanskian logic of 'levels' ffs.

Who actually thinks "What does he think I'm thinking?"

I bet Sklansky doesn't. He couldn't explain the process he really uses, so he rationalised a load of 'logical' crap. I'm certain of it.


* Truly enlightened ones see only 1 level, of course. Maybe less. I don't know. They won't tell me.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you come to this conclusion?