Levels of thinking

[reup]

Hi I'm working on an article for an academic journal called AQAL, which is an acronym for All Quadrants, All Levels, All Lines, All States, All Types.

Basically what AQAL represents is a theoretical structure for understanding the different levels, states, types etc. that a person may be operating from at a given time. In short, the texture of their consciousness.

What I'm doing is applying this framework to Poker.

So, in terms of level, a person may be thinking at the zeroth, 1st, 2nd, 3rd levels and so on.

What I'd like to know is how that plays out in terms of what an opponent is actually thinking.

So, what do the zeroeth, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and maybe 5th levels looks like?

Like zeroeth level would be the player is aware of their own cards and the board.

First would be the player is aware of their own thinking, as well as what the other player is thinking about their own cards.

And then where does it go from there? Any help is very much appreciated. Thank you.

[drzen]

This sounds like traditionally how it is worked out, so that you have thinks about own cards, thinks about own cards and opponents', thinks about what opponent thinks about own cards, thinks about what opponent thinks you think he thinks and so on. I'd add another level or levels, because at zero you have this:

Player has QT, board is Q97.

Zero level: I have top pair!
Zero-plus level: I have top pair but it's not the best top pair
Zero-plus-plus: I have top pair but it's not the best, and these draws are possible

and other gradations are possible.

This all precedes your level one.

I often find on this site that players are too willing to draw their categories of players too broadly, and assume too much. They think, this player is loose, so he's bad, so he will do x, y and z. But at least at a lower level, I think that there is a range of skills, some of which a player will have, and some they won't, but there is not necessarily a progression in acquisition of them, because a player might learn a concept that works without knowing why it works.

[reup]

i get [censored] up when i get to the third level.

zero = what you're thinking
first = what you think he's thinking
second = what you think he's thinking about what you're thinking
third = ???

[bsheck]

OP, I suggest taking a look at the section of "No Limit Hold'em Theory and Practice" on Multiple Level Thinking if you haven't already.

[qpw]

My suggestion:

First level: I've got good cards.

Second level: Given what I know about my opponent and how he has bet this hand I think this about his cards.

Third level: Given what he knows about me, and what I know about him, he will perceive the way I've bet this hand to mean this.

Fourth level: Given what he knows about me, and what I know about him, he will expect me to perceive the way he's bet this hand to mean this.


Despite the assertion by some that great poker playes habitualy think at the higher levels, I'm dubious that it is a major factor in the game, at least between players of similar capabilities, because the chain of logic is so easily disrupted by the interposition of qualifiers along the lines of "unless he's bluffing", "unless he thinks I'm bluffing", "unless he's trying to make me think he's bluffing".

This reduces the utility of multilevel thinking considerably compared to a game such as chess, for example.

There may be a game theoretical ideal proportion of times to make a play by trying to undertake this type of analysis in order to make the best use of what you know about your opponent and hinder his use of what he knows about you.

[reup]

ahhh perfect cheers mate

[reup]

great, that's interesting about how chess is different since there's no bluffing, thanks.