prove higher level thinking to me

alphatmw · #1 12-19-2006, 12:45 AM

find any hand posted wherever or post a new hand in which it is demonstrated that one of the players used level 4 thinking or higher.

level 0: what do i have?
level 1: what does my opponent have?
level 2: what does my opponent think i have?
level 3: what does my opponent think i think he has?

level 2 is used fairy often, i see level 3 demonstrated pretty infrequently, but i've never seen an example of level 4. i honestly don't believe it exists, except maybe used in <0.1% of hands played.

pencho · #2 12-19-2006, 01:58 AM

Here is an example I played myself, though I admit that I rarely come accross such situations:
I had AJ and position to my only opponent in a holden live game, pot limit. I raised to three bets preflop, he called in the BB. The flop came something like AKx. I was pretty sure I had the best hand, but all of a sudden, he made a pot bet, which was now quite substantial.
So the thought-process started: I knew that he knew I had an ace (level 2), since my play was rather obvious and he knew me well as a player. Therefore I had to assume that he expected me to call and was not afraid of my obvious pair (level 3). So I strongly considered folding. But then I realized that this was exactly the way he WANTED me to think (4 level) and that it was "all of a sudden" very likely that he actually wanted me to fold this hand. So I played the hand through and, I am lucky to say, he was indeed bluffing.

Gonso · #3 12-19-2006, 02:10 AM

They don't have all this in a given hand history, but this is about as close as I can get:

Level 0: I've got a real hand here. I'm raising this guy on the blind.

Level 1: This smart guy is reraising me... again. He could have just about anything, though. He's like that.

Level 2: He knows that I'm more than capable of going after his blind with Kx or better, so why wouldn't he defend here with any reasonable holding?

Level 3: He also realizes that I'm aware he could easily be on a resteal, which means I'm trying to trick him, disguising a real hand to look like my normal steal.

Level 4: At the same time, since it's less likely for me to have a junk hand than not, he might come to the conclusion that I could be milking the 'threat' of eventually tricking him with a real hand, in order to try to steal from him with trash right now.

***

Something like that.

But, yeah, I think 4+ is generally found at players a lot closer to world-class, where those guys are deep thinking all kinds of crazy levels.

alphatmw · #4 12-19-2006, 02:14 AM

i don't believe for a second that deciding whether to call a pot sized bet on the flop needs 4th level thinking or that it was because of your 4th level thinking that you came to the right decision. if he had flopped a set with XX, and he indeed knew you would rationalize that he knew you had flopped top pair, he would still bet.

pencho · #5 12-19-2006, 02:17 AM

You are right: I actually first bet the flop and he called. Then, on the turn, he made the pot bet. Sorry, I told it wrong.

pencho · #6 12-19-2006, 02:20 AM

And I want to add, that I of course could have been wrong all the way. He could have me beat. But this time I just had the right feeling of which level I had to think on or on what level he expected me to think on. We discussed this hand later and he confirmed that he was expecting me to think on the third level here.

alphatmw · #7 12-19-2006, 02:20 AM

gonso: the reason i asked for a HH is because i feel like anyone can give a hypothetical example (as you did) but as i read posts in HSNL and such, i don't ever find myself thinking at such a level. nor do i see the discussion ever reach that level. every move thats made i can usually attribute to 2nd or 3rd level thinking.

pencho · #8 12-19-2006, 02:40 AM

In the book "The Theory of Poker" in chapter 23 David Sklansky gives an example.
But you are right as far as discussion is concerned. Level 4 or higher very rarely gets mentioned. I think, that is because you really have to know your opponent very well and at the same time he has to know you very well (so you can predict his thoughts on you). Only at that point higher level thinking is worth it. When playing against average or weak players who do not go over level 2 or 3, it simply does not pay to think on a higher level, it will backfire.

Gonso · #9 12-19-2006, 04:11 AM

I'm just pointing out that it probably occurs more than you think between especially strong players, particularly elite ones. Their concentration and inductive reasoning skills, in addition to familiarity and experience playing against one another, would certainly force them to add layers of deceit.

Trying to 4th-level opponents is a dumb mistake at, say, 5/10 NL because most of the time they're not 3rd-leveling in the first place. In that case, you're only outsmarting yourself.

Now here's the real question... if you were going to 3rd level your opponent, but think he might figure that out, and you decide to do whatever 2nd level thinking would have you do instead, have you gone to the 4th level?

Iwineverypot · #10 12-19-2006, 07:13 AM

Way to ask for examples and then shoot someone down when they give one. Why is it so hard to believe that it is possible to think on the 4th level, especially between regular opponents? Many pros see SO many hands with eachother that I wouldn't be surprised if their thinking went beyond the 4th level..