Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]
Acid trip.

'Levels' crumble when you realise that you can't get into your opponent's head. He isn't a rational, shallow thinker. He may be a deep thinker, that isn't the point, because his head is full of weird angular junk and he'll check-raise the turn just to piss you off. I would. Against good opponents, of course, levels average out into game theory. You can apply that directly. 'Levels' are a totally ass backward way of thinking.

Sklansky, the autistic, the android, slowly working it out...

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
DATA
Counselor, Commander Riker will
assume that we have made this
analysis, and knowing that we know
his methods, he will alter them.
(a new equally bad
thought)
But knowing that we know that he
knows that we know he might choose
to return to his usual pattern.

TROI
You're over-analyzing. Human
nature cannot be denied.
(a beat)
What kind of man is Commander
Riker?

DATA
He is a fighter.

TROI
Yes.

DATA
The weaker his position, the more
aggressive will be his posture.

TROI
And he won't give up.

DATA
Then despite whatever logical
choices he is offered, he must
be --

TROI
-- The man that he is. Yes.

DATA
Is that a failing in humans?

TROI
(rising)
You'll have to decide that for
yourself.</pre><hr />

[fraac]

Maybe ass backward is harsh. 'Levels' are level 1 thinking. There.

[JJay1231]

I tried reading it a while ago but got so frustrated with the writing style after the first 100 or so pages that I just put the book down and never finished it. Maybe one day....

[BabboonBoy]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I do. I would wager the majority of good players do to. Really comes in handy on a bluff move.

[Jan]

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I hope you're kidding, either that or you're playing a different type of poker than I am. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I hope you're kidding, either that or you're playing a different type of poker than I am. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I just play the patterns. I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it.

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I hope you're kidding, either that or you're playing a different type of poker than I am. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I just play the patterns. I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that when you play the "patterns" you are doing the same thing as the "levels" of thinking is explaining, it's just that you don't articulate it very clearly for a new or intermediate player to understand what you're doing.

For example, if so-and-so makes a bet in a certain situation, and your experience recognizes the pattern of play up to that bet as typical of a steal attempt when you are representing weakness (i.e. you check the turn after a cb on a low flop), then you might treat it as a steal attempt and act accordingly. Etc. But that is not too much different than, "I have a good hand that raised pf, and cb'ed the flop. He called the pf raise and cb with range {x, y, z, ...}. When I check the turn he must think I have {a, b, c, ...} against which he'll most likely bet the turn expecting me to fold {b, c} because he'll think that I'll put him on a range of {x,y} even though I know his range is wider. So, when he bets representing {x, y}, but I know his range is most likely {x, y, z, ...} I can take advantage of my knowledge of the fact that he probably has a much wider range than what he is representing to raise/fold/call...

It gets wordy when you write it out. And over time and experience it become second nature. So, my guess is that what you call "patterns" is just an intuitive way of performing multiple levels of thinking that isn't easily expressed in writing, and isn't easily learned without gaining lots of first hand experience to recognize those patterns.

The "levels" thing is a fairly simple concept that a new player can read, digest, and apply to build experience more quickly so that that kind of intuition becomes more second nature than deliberate questions and answers at a table.

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that when you play the "patterns" you are doing the same thing as the "levels" of thinking is explaining, it's just that you don't articulate it very clearly, and therefore others can't emmulate your methods without either watching you play, or taking lots of time to build up first-hand experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good guess, that's what I said half a thread ago.

Maybe a pole is in order. Who thinks in levels versus thinking in patterns. Unfortunately I don't care.

Note that a weak process you can explain well isn't superior to a strong, more abstract process. This failing is evident in much of Sklansky's writing.

[eMbAh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that when you play the "patterns" you are doing the same thing as the "levels" of thinking is explaining, it's just that you don't articulate it very clearly, and therefore others can't emmulate your methods without either watching you play, or taking lots of time to build up first-hand experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good guess, that's what I said half a thread ago.

Maybe a pole is in order. Who thinks in levels versus thinking in patterns. Unfortunately I don't care.

Note that a weak process you can explain well isn't superior to a strong, more abstract process. This failing is evident in much of Sklansky's writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

What stakes do you play?

[Jan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I hope you're kidding, either that or you're playing a different type of poker than I am. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I just play the patterns. I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be ridiculous. Patterns are important. In fact, online I rely mostly on patterns and only worry about what my opponent is thinking if I know I am playing a very good player.

Live, I find that playing the player and thinking about what your opponent is thinking, why he/she is making a certain play against YOU comes into play more often. Betting patterns are still important...in fact patterns will be your first piece of information you get about an unknown player.

But no way would I rely on patterns alone when playing live. You have to pay attention to how your opponent perceives you, and that requires thinking about what he/she is thinking, don't you think?

All this is important online too, however I find it much harder to read players online. Live, especially in weekly casino tournaments, I make plays/calls that I would never do online. And this is due to understanding how my opponent is thinking.