[Vorlin]

[ QUOTE ]
.... Any decent book NLHE should cover the different possibilities you mention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, they do so only in the most rudimentary sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that the novelty here is rendering this "conversation" in plain English instead of in bet sizes?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the idea is to be able to apply this to many hands in there entirety, helping people to better understand the possible meanings behind each action depending on the situation.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how that changes much, other than adding a possibly useful metaphor.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that it changes anything at all... rather, it can lead to additional insight and understanding. Poker is, after all, a game of information... and the better you understand the meanings, truthful or deceptive, of any action then the better armed you will be when you have to make a decision.

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, the conversation metaphor points out the contrasts between poker and a partnership game like bridge. In bridge, your primary aim of the conversation is to communicate with your partner, not to deceive the opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]
True again... but it's just as much of a conversation as Bridge... and often times we are not trying to decieve at all. Such times include defending top pair or playing a draw as cheply as possible. Most opponents aren't knowledgeble enough when it comes to the more subtle nuances and it's only after you become familiar with some of them that the more advanced plays begin to make sense.

[ QUOTE ]
In poker, you have no one with which to communicate affimatively.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by "affirmitavely" but we are communicating with any and every one who has a live hand with our every action.

[ QUOTE ]
Your only "conversation" is a stunted one because its purpose is deception. You say, "I can beat top pair," but you really only want to be believed when you're lying.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, there are far more purposes than deception. For example, if you check to me on the flop and I hammer it hard enough to take away your drawing odds then I'm probably not trying to decieve you at all... I have top pair and I don't want you to draw out on me. A large enough bet to ruin your odds says that pretty clearly.

However, there are many times when actions only make sense when strung together. What about a check raise on the flop followed by betting out only 1/3 of the pot on the turn? I've made such moves and had people look me dead in the eye and tell me to stop pulling on their nipples because they're not a cow. The actions, when taken together, communicate that I'm milking them and they know it.

So, how many other nuances are there out there? Has anyone thought about it or tried to interperet hands this way to see what the actions really meant? The only way to be sure is if we know all the hole cards because then we can see the attempts at deception for what they are and, by examining the patterns, it may become easier to spot deception when it happens right before your eyes as you play out a hand.

Poker is a game of information but that information comes from incomplete sources... so we need to be able to make the most of every source of information we can get. I started seeing these kind of patterns in games I played and then started to pay attention to what I was saying as I played. Also, Matt Lessinger's "Book of Bluffss" looks about as deeply as anything into how these actions can combine to tell a story... so I'm simply trying to take it beyond that and ferret out whatever info I can find.

Unfortunately, it's a narrow subject that could have bits and pieces hidden throught the vast library of material here and I was beginning to get dizzy as I waded through various forums, trying to find those bits and pieces that I seek. So, I thought I'd simply open my mouth and ask if anyone knew of any such posts that they would be kind enought to direct me to.

Maybe, maybe not. But it never hurts to ask.

Vorlin