prove higher level thinking to me

[AKQJ10]

Right, exactly.

[SplawnDarts]

While the mathamatican in me likes the idea of infinite levels of recursive Vizzini-like thinking, in practice I believe it to be complete bull for three reasons:

1) it requires a large number of accurate reads back and forth, and at the higher N levels those reads aren't just of what your opponents is holding or thinking, but of the way they perform psychological analysis. I believe in practice such reads are nearly if not completely impossible, and at the very least, error prone, which leads to...

2) The higher the level of your reasoning, the more reads on different things you need to rely on. The chance that one of those reads in in error (thus sending your Nth level reasoning off into the weeds) approaches 1 very quickly. I'd say it's pretty much there by the time N=4.

3) At each back-n-forth itteration for a high N, there's the possibility that someone is basing their reasoning on a flawed premise and as such it is inaccurate. After all, in reality there was poison in BOTH cups.

[AKQJ10]

Good elaboration on what I meant by "leaks". Beyond a certain point, it's just crazy to think that Level 13 players consciously play to beat Level 12 players (but would lose if they misread a Level 10 player) or whatever.

Now Level 13 sarcasm, on the other hand, is alive and well.

[Usagi_yo]

Simple concept, but I often wonder if there are only two outcomes, 50-50 that either your call or bet is wrong or right, How deep do you have to go in thinking to shade the odds in your favor.

Here is my example, I raise in late position steal with A7s and the flop comes 7-7-4 and my astute BB opponant fires out a bet. Know he's thinking I'm holding two broadway cards. He knows that I know this and will fold about 70% of the time to a bet, call about 10% of the time and raise as a steal continuation 20% of the time. I know that if simply raise or call my opponant is more then likely to just fire out again so my call or raise yields no information. So I will raise the flop, call his turn bet and bet or raise the river.

This particular opponant I have in a 10-20 game makes the mistake of always thinking that the stronger I play my hand, the weaker it likely is. I in turn probably do fold too many weak (but winning) hands against him, such alot of nut nothings, but extract maximum payoffs when I have medium to strong hands.

[ispiked]

[ QUOTE ]
Simple concept, but I often wonder if there are only two outcomes, 50-50 that either your call or bet is wrong or right, How deep do you have to go in thinking to shade the odds in your favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping someone would bring this up. Doesn't each one of these situations come down to a 50/50 chance that you'll be right or wrong? Your opponent either has something or he doesn't. Granted, you can take into consideration many other factors like if he pushed pre-flop, etc. But in the end, no matter how hard you think, I believe there's still a 50/50 chance.

Here's an example: most of the stuff I've read assumes that if someone pushes pre-flop they have either a high pair or A K, A Q, A J, etc. e.g. a "good" hand. Is this really the right assumption to make? How do you know this guy doesn't know that you'll think this and decide to make this move with low suited connectors. The flop comes 4s 5d 7h and this guy bets with his straight on the flop. You're holding pocket aces thinking he has maybe a pair with a high kicker. An Ace comes on the river and you bet; he calls. Js comes on the river, he bets and you're thinking he he's hit his Jacks with a A kicker. You raise, he raises and you call. He shows his straight and you lose.

Why not just exploit such knowledge like this? Why do people assume that since they're playing high limits someone wouldn't do this?

[GiantBuddha]

woah... if you're always 50/50 right or wrong why not just flip a coin? Seriously, does anyone play poker anymore? Sure, it's theoretically possible to come up with an unexploitable game theory strategy to poker, but that doesn't mean it would be the optimal exploitive strategy. Poker is about exploiting your opponent's mistakes.

Again, poker is about exploiting your opponent's mistakes. That means you have to know what mistakes your opponent is likely to make in order to know how best to exploit them. You do this by observing their play and figuring out how they think. Granted, this is harder to do online than when you're actually sitting there with a living breathing human being. As a poker player you have to find out how your opponents think. And they're trying to do the same. And that's why there is multiple level thinking. It only breaks down if you let it.

[AKQJ10]

I don't know where this 50/50 thing came from. Very few poker decisions are anywhere near 50/50. They may be almost break-even decisions, especially against opponents who bluff at the correct frequency. E.g. pot laying 3:1, 25% chance I have the best hand, do I call? Not 50-50.

[ispiked]

Well, the possibility of your opponent having something is 50/50: he either has something or he doesn't (e.g. you win or you lose). So the chance of you guessing this correctly is a 50/50 chance. But yeah, whether or not you should call is probably not 50/50.

(I'm just saying this because people seem to congratulate themselves for guessing some guy has nothing, betting big, and the guy laying down when the odds of this happening are probably 50/50. Or maybe not. Can someone enlighten me?)

[alphatmw]

god poker theory is so sad now (ispiked)

[GiantBuddha]

Either/Or is not the same as 50/50. If I throw a dart, it's either going to hit the bullseye or it's not. Is the chance 50/50? Not unless I'm really good at darts (I'm not).